Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 1:41 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 9 of 9
PrintE-mailLink
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 1:00 pm - IP Logged

"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!

"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?"

It's questions like this that prove you have no idea of how people play pick-3 or understand the concept of gambling.

Over time every straight 3 digit number will be drawn and systems are designed to predict when the timing is right. There is no guarantee and that's why it's called gambling. Personally if I was going to actively play pick-3, I'd look for patterns that consistently produces hits. The answer to your question should be obvious because I wouldn't be playing a pattern that wasn't producing hits.

"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."

I'm not going speculate on how other players bet, but I know if someone decided to play their 3 digit license plate number or their area code phone number for the next year and it hit in the 12th month, they would still show a profit. I've never argued the fact state lotteries keep about 50% of all pick-3 wagers, but the payoffs prove someone is winning.

"I've had a few students like you, usually in the back of the classroom."

If what you taught was as boring as what you're posting on LP, I can't see how you could keep the attention of even one student.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19816 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 2:18 pm - 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!

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

I was simply pointing out that even a system after winning a jackpot, except for winning that jackpot would probably not look very impressive when back tested.

(As I posted in another thread)
By design states lotteries are designed so 45-50% of tickets sales is profits for the states.  When you consider that 5% go to retailers for selling tickets and another 5-10% goes for advertising and operating cost, players as a group are lucky to get 40% of their money back.  To attract more players 30% of sales usually go to build up the jackpot leaving 10% to pay the lower tier prizes.

Players expecting a successful system to return 100% of what they spend on tickets even if it doesn't win a jackpot will be disappointed.

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

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1659 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 2:27 pm - IP Logged

"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?"

It's questions like this that prove you have no idea of how people play pick-3 or understand the concept of gambling.

Over time every straight 3 digit number will be drawn and systems are designed to predict when the timing is right. There is no guarantee and that's why it's called gambling. Personally if I was going to actively play pick-3, I'd look for patterns that consistently produces hits. The answer to your question should be obvious because I wouldn't be playing a pattern that wasn't producing hits.

"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."

I'm not going speculate on how other players bet, but I know if someone decided to play their 3 digit license plate number or their area code phone number for the next year and it hit in the 12th month, they would still show a profit. I've never argued the fact state lotteries keep about 50% of all pick-3 wagers, but the payoffs prove someone is winning.

"I've had a few students like you, usually in the back of the classroom."

If what you taught was as boring as what you're posting on LP, I can't see how you could keep the attention of even one student.

Stack,

You're right. There are people who do play 'their number' every night. But let's not give Magic Ju-Ju any ideas they are system players. Those people are just doing it for the 'feel good' money. Just a little something to perk up their life. We know it is not with a get rich expectation. We know those people are not sitting with a ledger tracking every penny they spend.

"In a Pick3 game playing \$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?"

What's hilarious about this question is it was asked by a 'qualified' PERSON WHO TRACKED ONE SYSYEM OVER WHAT, 33 YEARS, BEFORE DECIDING IT WOULDN'T WORK? Do you know any nerf ball who would backtest a system 33 years being aware that if a system wasn't hitting, you should TRY A DIFFERENT SYSTEM?????

The whole premise was a Magic Ju-Ju induced, utterly contrived non-happening!!!!

NO systems player is going to play one number a night expecting to win.

NO systems player is going to continue losing more than a week/10 days before making some changes.

NO systems player is going to be completely sold on the any system just because it won the first night.

Am I right?

Oh, don't put much credence in the mention of classroom. Jimboo-boo has mentioned stock trading and computer prgramming too. He's just playing kick the can, making a lot noise, trying to irritate the neighbors. Classroom is probably code for "the place I ride my Big Wheel."

FEMA Region V Camp #21
United States
Member #520
July 27, 2002
5699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 2:47 pm - IP Logged

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.

You are an astute one, Mr. J.

"If you believe intuitive thinking is more important and is the how of it I'm willing to believe you."

For me personally, the jury is still out on that question.  The reason I say that is I have devoted 95% of my effort to analysis and 5% to intuition for these many years.  I am only now working with intuition so I haven't experimented enough to make a conclusion.

With that said, I'm very excited about the prospects of the 95% intuitive path.  I am still learning but I'm having success and feel that I can improve.

Here's an example.  I use playing cards to get my numbers for the pick 3 game.  The cards are only a tool for my subconscious to use to communicate with my conscious mind (via shuffling, cutting, etc.).  As with Tarot, you ask the cards to give you information.  I found that it's important to specify the date when doing this.  (I am seeking a specific point in the timeline after all.)

Last night I was looking for a single number to play for today.  I focused heavily on today's date because of my recent success at doing that.  I drew 3 cards from 40.  Well, I focused too heavily on the date because the cards I drew were 2-3-3 which is today's date!

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 23, 2011, 3:45 pm - IP Logged

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.

Regardless of what you believe about randomness, seeing into the future, or the relevance of dreams, the fact remains that when it comes to systems claiming to help you win more than Quick-Picks, "The Proof Is In The Pudding."  When will you face the fact that a proposed system that is not analyzed through back-test or simulation, or fails to do better than chance when it is, is a waste of time and money?  I see your latest drivel is focused on your mantras of what true blooded players would and would NOT play.  Is this your idea of the Scientific Method?   However you want to play, it can be tested.

Claiming your systems are too complex for back-test or simulation is a cop-out.

I see in your other post you are throwing out some off the cuff numbers regarding the amount of data you require.  How did you arrive at these estimates?  It looks like you give up on your systems quite quickly.

I believe the unanswered questions you're referring to are the ones you posed as a way to evade the issues I had raised.  But, if you must have a response:  I didn't think much more about Lotterybraker's view of randomness once I read, "...I have solved about 85% of FINITE RANDOM..."  What do YOU think of that statement?  I don't have a response.

Have you ever tried to have your theories on lotteries and randomness aired in scholarly journals or on moderated scientific Forums?  If you did, what was the response?

As I compose this, I see that you and your teammate, Stack47, are playing dueling banjos in an effort to muddy the waters of my postings again.  Let this be for him as well.

Actually, RJOh's posting above at 2:18 PM tells you all you need to know about lotteries.

BTW, when you allude to a belief that a person can't do systems analysis and programming on a day job and teach computer science at night, speak for yourself.

In the meantime, look for mention of you and your buddy in this interesting animation:

http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1659 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 5:42 pm - IP Logged

Regardless of what you believe about randomness, seeing into the future, or the relevance of dreams, the fact remains that when it comes to systems claiming to help you win more than Quick-Picks, "The Proof Is In The Pudding."  When will you face the fact that a proposed system that is not analyzed through back-test or simulation, or fails to do better than chance when it is, is a waste of time and money?  I see your latest drivel is focused on your mantras of what true blooded players would and would NOT play.  Is this your idea of the Scientific Method?   However you want to play, it can be tested.

Claiming your systems are too complex for back-test or simulation is a cop-out.

I see in your other post you are throwing out some off the cuff numbers regarding the amount of data you require.  How did you arrive at these estimates?  It looks like you give up on your systems quite quickly.

I believe the unanswered questions you're referring to are the ones you posed as a way to evade the issues I had raised.  But, if you must have a response:  I didn't think much more about Lotterybraker's view of randomness once I read, "...I have solved about 85% of FINITE RANDOM..."  What do YOU think of that statement?  I don't have a response.

Have you ever tried to have your theories on lotteries and randomness aired in scholarly journals or on moderated scientific Forums?  If you did, what was the response?

As I compose this, I see that you and your teammate, Stack47, are playing dueling banjos in an effort to muddy the waters of my postings again.  Let this be for him as well.

Actually, RJOh's posting above at 2:18 PM tells you all you need to know about lotteries.

BTW, when you allude to a belief that a person can't do systems analysis and programming on a day job and teach computer science at night, speak for yourself.

In the meantime, look for mention of you and your buddy in this interesting animation:

http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

Jimboo-boo!!!!!!

Did some backtest on this post. If my numbers are right, the verdict is: Go to Systems fo and post a poll to find out what 'normal' systems players do. Pretty sound  backtesting, huh?

This just in! You can't backtest Quick Picks! Details at your local lottery terminal. Now for the latest, let's use the 70/30 rule.

70 people have Quick Picks, 30 people have personal picks. A Quick Pick wins. So what do we have?

We have 30 people with personal picks who lost, and 69 people with Quick Picks who LOST.   ALMOST TWICE AS MANY LOSERS ARE QUICK PICKS!

Oh, I missed these 'off the cuff numbers' I was throwing out. If you mean the '33 years,' I'm used that based on the posting in this thread, nothing arbitrary about it.

And what do you believe about those questions? Those were in direct response to your post that I was wrong about what you were claiming.

I asked, "What are you doing if you aren't offering opinion, fact, evidence, etc?"

And I brought up the redundancy of 'rightfully claiming,' since I have yet to see one person say, "I am WRONGLY CLAIMING."

Finally, it is no one's fault scholarly journals do not want to hear about your theories on lotteries and randomness. Only a meglomaniac, who needs a hug, would find that necessary. Or maybe they see the shortcomings in your work, or ideas? Ask them.

Now if you prefer scientific forums, and the moderator don't kick you off before midnight, just send me a pm and I'll join you there.

And thanks for another worthless link I won't click!

Now I'm off to go check out the ladies at the lake while reading The Art of War.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 6:10 pm - IP Logged

Stack,

You're right. There are people who do play 'their number' every night. But let's not give Magic Ju-Ju any ideas they are system players. Those people are just doing it for the 'feel good' money. Just a little something to perk up their life. We know it is not with a get rich expectation. We know those people are not sitting with a ledger tracking every penny they spend.

"In a Pick3 game playing \$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?"

What's hilarious about this question is it was asked by a 'qualified' PERSON WHO TRACKED ONE SYSYEM OVER WHAT, 33 YEARS, BEFORE DECIDING IT WOULDN'T WORK? Do you know any nerf ball who would backtest a system 33 years being aware that if a system wasn't hitting, you should TRY A DIFFERENT SYSTEM?????

The whole premise was a Magic Ju-Ju induced, utterly contrived non-happening!!!!

NO systems player is going to play one number a night expecting to win.

NO systems player is going to continue losing more than a week/10 days before making some changes.

NO systems player is going to be completely sold on the any system just because it won the first night.

Am I right?

Oh, don't put much credence in the mention of classroom. Jimboo-boo has mentioned stock trading and computer prgramming too. He's just playing kick the can, making a lot noise, trying to irritate the neighbors. Classroom is probably code for "the place I ride my Big Wheel."

"Am I right?"

Of course you're right and exactly why comparing how a system would do over the lifetime of a pick-3 game is useless. There is a 88 page plus discussion about a pick-3 straight system in the Systems Forum that involves using 4 digits in each digit position. That system evolved from another system discussed by many LP members. Jimmy wanted details so he could back test it using his 33 year PA pick-3 statistics even though the system or how to play it wasn't fully developed.

The initial system started with 9 straight combos, went to 30 straight combos and now I believe it's up to 64. Even though nobody has ever suggested playing all 64 combos every day, I'll bet if it wasn't so time consuming to back test, Jimmy would provide some more useless statistics showing how playing all 64 straight combos every day for over 33 years would result in a loss.

What Jimmy knows about lottery players can be summed up by what he said on October 8, 2010.

"My only concern is that if too many people have the fog lifted from their eyes as I have, given the parimutuel setup of many of the lotteries, *as jackpots dwindle, more and more people might stop playing, which could spell the end of the lotteries as we know them."

Since his prophetic statement, the MM jackpot has reached \$300 million twice!

*emphasis mine

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 6:36 pm - IP Logged

Regardless of what you believe about randomness, seeing into the future, or the relevance of dreams, the fact remains that when it comes to systems claiming to help you win more than Quick-Picks, "The Proof Is In The Pudding."  When will you face the fact that a proposed system that is not analyzed through back-test or simulation, or fails to do better than chance when it is, is a waste of time and money?  I see your latest drivel is focused on your mantras of what true blooded players would and would NOT play.  Is this your idea of the Scientific Method?   However you want to play, it can be tested.

Claiming your systems are too complex for back-test or simulation is a cop-out.

I see in your other post you are throwing out some off the cuff numbers regarding the amount of data you require.  How did you arrive at these estimates?  It looks like you give up on your systems quite quickly.

I believe the unanswered questions you're referring to are the ones you posed as a way to evade the issues I had raised.  But, if you must have a response:  I didn't think much more about Lotterybraker's view of randomness once I read, "...I have solved about 85% of FINITE RANDOM..."  What do YOU think of that statement?  I don't have a response.

Have you ever tried to have your theories on lotteries and randomness aired in scholarly journals or on moderated scientific Forums?  If you did, what was the response?

As I compose this, I see that you and your teammate, Stack47, are playing dueling banjos in an effort to muddy the waters of my postings again.  Let this be for him as well.

Actually, RJOh's posting above at 2:18 PM tells you all you need to know about lotteries.

BTW, when you allude to a belief that a person can't do systems analysis and programming on a day job and teach computer science at night, speak for yourself.

In the meantime, look for mention of you and your buddy in this interesting animation:

http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

(The quoted text above is my own, Jimmy4164.)

Dear  garyo1954,

Well Gary, I have to say I'm sorry again.  Sorry that, for some reason, I just don't seem to be able to get my meaning across to you.  Now, either your reading comprehension is at a much lower level than I thought, or you are hoping that the others here can't read, because your obfuscation of my post to try to imply that MY lottery ideas were rejected by scholarly journals, is really quite LAME.  Did you ever submit yours, or not?

There is only one thing worse than losing a debate, and that's winning a debate with someone who is unable to comprehend that they have lost.  This is really turning out to be a big waste of my time.

Too bad you chose not to click on the link; I think you would have enjoyed it.

http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 6:48 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says,

What Jimmy knows about lottery players can be summed up by what he said on October 8, 2010.

"My only concern is that if too many people have the fog lifted from their eyes as I have, given the parimutuel setup of many of the lotteries, *as jackpots dwindle, more and more people might stop playing, which could spell the end of the lotteries as we know them."

Since his prophetic statement, the MM jackpot has reached \$300 million twice!

*emphasis mine

Jimmy4164 says,

Thanks Stack, that's one of my best quotes!  However, I thought you, garyo1954, and RL-RANDOMLOGIC were going to look up the meanings of context, metaphor, sarcasm, and irony.  Apparently you haven't.

Such a pity - you miss a lot!

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 7:00 pm - IP Logged

Rather than risk the wrath of the boss,

I've decided it's time for me to exit this Thread.

It has ceased to provide any mathematical insights,

and is sinking into absurdity.

--Jimmy4164

Fort Worth, TX
United States
Member #106060
February 11, 2011
188 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2011, 7:05 pm - IP Logged

Rather than risk the wrath of the boss,

I've decided it's time for me to exit this Thread.

It has ceased to provide any mathematical insights,

and is sinking into absurdity.

--Jimmy4164

Aww man! C'mon, not yet. What the hell am I gonna do with all this popcorn?

How you do anything is how you do everything.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 24, 2011, 12:00 am - IP Logged

Aww man! C'mon, not yet. What the hell am I gonna do with all this popcorn?

No worries, Jimmy will be back as soon as he's done picketing the MM players waiting for their chance to buy a ticket that could be worth millions at his local 7/11. He'll be passing out pamphlets explaining ROI and yelling into a huge megaphone, "don't you people understand the true expected value of those tickets?".

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 24, 2011, 12:22 pm - IP Logged

I was simply pointing out that even a system after winning a jackpot, except for winning that jackpot would probably not look very impressive when back tested.

(As I posted in another thread)
By design states lotteries are designed so 45-50% of tickets sales is profits for the states.  When you consider that 5% go to retailers for selling tickets and another 5-10% goes for advertising and operating cost, players as a group are lucky to get 40% of their money back.  To attract more players 30% of sales usually go to build up the jackpot leaving 10% to pay the lower tier prizes.

Players expecting a successful system to return 100% of what they spend on tickets even if it doesn't win a jackpot will be disappointed.

The only value in back testing a jackpot winning system would be to Pumpi who talks about hitting multiple jackpots and winning billions. Since we already know the system was successful once, there is no value in finding the system might have created other jackpot winners from back testing when we can't go back in time and use it.

For lotto and pick-5 games I have a program that shows how many 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 number hits any group of any 16 numbers had over whatever number of past drawings I chose. The results are based on playing a full 16 number wheel so unless someone is planning on playing a full 16 number wheel, back testing isn't much help.

Most pick-3 systems are based on past results so back testing only shows what ready know.

"Players expecting a successful system to return 100% of what they spend on tickets even if it doesn't win a jackpot will be disappointed."

Before I checked the tickets, I thought I was very successful when 5 of the 15 numbers I chose to play in a 3 if 5 abbreviated wheel were drawn. Disappointment doesn't describe what I felt when I found I only got the wheel guarantee and lost 3 bucks.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19816 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 24, 2011, 2:13 pm - IP Logged

The only value in back testing a jackpot winning system would be to Pumpi who talks about hitting multiple jackpots and winning billions. Since we already know the system was successful once, there is no value in finding the system might have created other jackpot winners from back testing when we can't go back in time and use it.

For lotto and pick-5 games I have a program that shows how many 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 number hits any group of any 16 numbers had over whatever number of past drawings I chose. The results are based on playing a full 16 number wheel so unless someone is planning on playing a full 16 number wheel, back testing isn't much help.

Most pick-3 systems are based on past results so back testing only shows what ready know.

"Players expecting a successful system to return 100% of what they spend on tickets even if it doesn't win a jackpot will be disappointed."

Before I checked the tickets, I thought I was very successful when 5 of the 15 numbers I chose to play in a 3 if 5 abbreviated wheel were drawn. Disappointment doesn't describe what I felt when I found I only got the wheel guarantee and lost 3 bucks.

Before I checked the tickets, I thought I was very successful when 5 of the 15 numbers I chose to play in a 3 if 5 abbreviated wheel were drawn. Disappointment doesn't describe what I felt when I found I only got the wheel guarantee and lost 3 bucks.

Affordable wheels are designed to guarantee a minimum prize if all 5 winning numbers are in them.  While winning a \$1-\$10 prize may feel good, it's no fun knowing you have to spend a lot more than that to win it.

Unless you win a jackpot, wheeling your lottery picks is a faster way of losing money than just playing them in 10-20 lines randomly.

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7295 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 24, 2011, 7:50 pm - IP Logged

Before I checked the tickets, I thought I was very successful when 5 of the 15 numbers I chose to play in a 3 if 5 abbreviated wheel were drawn. Disappointment doesn't describe what I felt when I found I only got the wheel guarantee and lost 3 bucks.

Affordable wheels are designed to guarantee a minimum prize if all 5 winning numbers are in them.  While winning a \$1-\$10 prize may feel good, it's no fun knowing you have to spend a lot more than that to win it.

Unless you win a jackpot, wheeling your lottery picks is a faster way of losing money than just playing them in 10-20 lines randomly.

What it proved to me is if I'm going to use a wheel, I should use one with better coverage. I've never matched all 5 numbers using a 3 if 4 wheel but every time I matched 4 numbers I had a four number match. If you can consistently hit 2 or 3 numbers with an occasional 4, you can make a small profit or play a at greatly reduced cost playing a 5/39 game. I wouldn't recommend any wheel when the game doesn't pay for a 2 number match and only pays \$5 for matching 3 and \$150 for matching 4.

 Page 9 of 9