Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 7:25 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

MATH 5/39: Stack47, Garyo1954, RL-RANDOMLOGIC VS Jimmy4164

Topic closed. 42 replies. Last post 6 years ago by RJOh.

Page 2 of 3
51
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7302 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 1, 2011, 5:25 pm - IP Logged

Also I wanted to add that as far as I know Stack is not using the digit system.  All of your

assmptions are incorrect again.  I think, like me he just does not like you, simple as that. 

RL

"Also I wanted to add that as far as I know Stack is not using the digit system."

You're correct, RL and that's something I've never ever said to Jimmy.

"I think, like me he just does not like you, simple as that."

Jimmy reminds me of an atheist on a religious message board and though sometimes interesting in their first few post, sticks around and become a boring troll. It's not that I dislike him personally, it's just that he hasn't provided any useful information to help anybody hit a jackpot or even get tiny profit playing any lottery game. Over and over he continues to say "I can prove that would be a bad bet" even though over and over again somebody keeps telling him the majority of players don't play that way.


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 1, 2011, 6:27 pm - IP Logged

    "Also I wanted to add that as far as I know Stack is not using the digit system."

    You're correct, RL and that's something I've never ever said to Jimmy.

    "I think, like me he just does not like you, simple as that."

    Jimmy reminds me of an atheist on a religious message board and though sometimes interesting in their first few post, sticks around and become a boring troll. It's not that I dislike him personally, it's just that he hasn't provided any useful information to help anybody hit a jackpot or even get tiny profit playing any lottery game. Over and over he continues to say "I can prove that would be a bad bet" even though over and over again somebody keeps telling him the majority of players don't play that way.

    "It's not that I dislike him personally, it's just that he hasn't provided any useful information to help anybody hit a jackpot or even get tiny profit playing any lottery game."

    Has it ever occured to you that since I learned many years ago that it is impossible to do this, I don't even try?

    What I have said "over and over" is that the best you can do is spread your winnings(losses) out over many small hits, but that in the end you are going to lose, UNLESS you hit the Jackpot, RL-RANDOMLOGIC's claims notwithstanding!  Assuming RL is being truthful and starting with the odds against him beating Chance over many years by a factor of ELEVEN, calculate the odds of additional people copying his success.  That is, if you believe him.

    Are you going to deal with the math I've presented, or keep ignoring it?

    BTW, why would you shun a system with an 1110% edge?


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 1, 2011, 6:41 pm - IP Logged

      Please take note: I don't expect the settings in RL's program to be compatable with anything but a Base-10 counting system.

      It couldn't be any other way since all US lotteries use a base-10 numbering system and their numbers are the only ones that count when you play their games.

      My system also use digit counts to eliminate combinations but it only a part of the total elimination process.  For example when I pick some lines for tonights' MegaMillion game, each combination will have 4-8 different digits, 8-10 total digits and cover 3-5 decades.  I also will limit the sums of their 5 core numbers to 74-310 and the gap between the numbers to 1-34 with a range of the lowest to the highest numbers to 16-54 because 95% of previous winning combinations have those same limits.  I also will use some other data that covers 95% of past winners.

      The ultimate goal of any lottery system is to win a jackpot and until it does, debating its potential to win doesn't mean much.  I look forward to a day when a lottery winner posing for pictures will be wearing a LP cap and/or LP shirt and proudly say "I'm a LP member" and maybe then I'll starting thinking "Now there's a LP member who knows of what he speaks".

      "My system also use digit counts to eliminate combinations but it only a part of the total elimination process.  For example when I pick some lines for tonights' MegaMillion game, each combination will have 4-8 different digits, 8-10 total digits and cover 3-5 decades.  I also will limit the sums of their 5 core numbers to 74-310 and the gap between the numbers to 1-34 with a range of the lowest to the highest numbers to 16-54 because 95% of previous winning combinations have those same limits.  I also will use some other data that covers 95% of past winners."

      Do you ever get frustrated wondering WHY, when you carefully select sets with attributes that 95% of the previous winners have, you don't win any more than you do?  Maybe you need to join RL's team.

      "I look forward to a day when a lottery winner posing for pictures will be wearing a LP cap and/or LP shirt and proudly say 'I'm a LP member' and maybe then I'll starting thinking 'Now there's a LP member who knows of what he speaks'."

      In the meantime, how do you feel about all the Jackpot winners who win with QuickPick purchases?  Should they wear QP caps?

        Avatar
        bgonçalves
        Brasil
        Member #92564
        June 9, 2010
        2122 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 1, 2011, 7:12 pm - IP Logged

        Hello friends, having the following basis, in a lottery can only be
         
        Mathematically predict with confidence from 70% to 80% the rest is random
        Example = can see that in a lottery of 49 / 6 when it is done
         
        Much study until it gets 4 hits in 6 hits, then in addition
        Let's try to put a lottery of 49 / 4 within a 49 / 6 or
         
        Try to hit 4 numbers, but because we first have to hit 4 numbers
        The other two will be random, taking the advantage of numbers turns 6
         
        To hit 4, then the other two go back! An array = 49/4/6
        Until you can do two positions left blank, will be random
         
        The delay, then 6 positions have 15 quartets or turning blocks
         
        6 positions in the 2nd example = position has delayed the number th 15:05
        Position has delayed the number 37, is in position 1 st, 3 rd 4 th 6 th these POSITIONS
         
        Belong to a quartet of 15 positions, can help me with this?
        An aim to hit 4 of 6 lottery numbers but with 4 the rest of the bet
        In luck! thanks

        Ouvir
        Ler foneticamente
          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
          mid-Ohio
          United States
          Member #9
          March 24, 2001
          19824 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 1, 2011, 10:11 pm - IP Logged

          "My system also use digit counts to eliminate combinations but it only a part of the total elimination process.  For example when I pick some lines for tonights' MegaMillion game, each combination will have 4-8 different digits, 8-10 total digits and cover 3-5 decades.  I also will limit the sums of their 5 core numbers to 74-310 and the gap between the numbers to 1-34 with a range of the lowest to the highest numbers to 16-54 because 95% of previous winning combinations have those same limits.  I also will use some other data that covers 95% of past winners."

          Do you ever get frustrated wondering WHY, when you carefully select sets with attributes that 95% of the previous winners have, you don't win any more than you do?  Maybe you need to join RL's team.

          "I look forward to a day when a lottery winner posing for pictures will be wearing a LP cap and/or LP shirt and proudly say 'I'm a LP member' and maybe then I'll starting thinking 'Now there's a LP member who knows of what he speaks'."

          In the meantime, how do you feel about all the Jackpot winners who win with QuickPick purchases?  Should they wear QP caps?

          Do you ever get frustrated wondering WHY, when you carefully select sets with attributes that 95% of the previous winners have, you don't win any more than you do?  Maybe you need to join RL's team.

          Why would I be frustrated when I picked from the same 175,711,536 possible combinations as the winners? Do QP players get frustrated when winners pick their own numbers?.  Just because I pick my combinations more deliberately than some doesn't entitle to a win.  When it comes to playing lotteries I like picking my numbers my way using my system and I'm sure RL feels the same way.

          In the meantime, how do you feel about all the Jackpot winners who win with QuickPick purchases?  Should they wear QP caps?

          What lottery winners choose to do is their business, but it would be nice to know if they were a LP member.

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

            rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
            Texas
            United States
            Member #55889
            October 23, 2007
            5591 Posts
            Online
            Posted: March 1, 2011, 10:25 pm - IP Logged

            Do you ever get frustrated wondering WHY, when you carefully select sets with attributes that 95% of the previous winners have, you don't win any more than you do?  Maybe you need to join RL's team.

            Why would I be frustrated when I picked from the same 175,711,536 possible combinations as the winners? Do QP players get frustrated when winners pick their own numbers?.  Just because I pick my combinations more deliberately than some doesn't entitle to a win.  When it comes to playing lotteries I like picking my numbers my way using my system and I'm sure RL feels the same way.

            In the meantime, how do you feel about all the Jackpot winners who win with QuickPick purchases?  Should they wear QP caps?

            What lottery winners choose to do is their business, but it would be nice to know if they were a LP member.

            "When it comes to playing lotteries I like picking my numbers my way using my system and I'm sure RL feels the same way."

            BINGO!

            There is no right way or wrong way to pick numbers. There is no reason to jump someone when they post a system. We're here to learn from others, share ideas.

            Very well said RJOh.

            CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

            A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7302 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 1, 2011, 10:26 pm - IP Logged
              I think the best way to solve the problem of interference in our Topics is to establish a sanctuary, so to speak, for discussion of our areas of disagreement.  It's easy enough to reference whatever posting we feel a need to question, leaving the original poster's Topic intact.
               
              So, for starters, here we go!
               
              We established quite a while ago that unless you win a Jackpot in the Missouri Show-Me-5 buying QuickPicks, on average, you will end up losing about 72 ¢ for every $1 ticket you buy. ( 1 )
               
              RL-RANDOMLOGIC has graciously given us a summary of his annual winnings, averaged over many years. ( 2 )
              RL said, "For the record, I win between $500.00 to $1000.00 per year more then I spend.  I play between 25 and 35 times a year and play between 8 and 15 lines."  What this averages out to is approximately $360/Yr spent on tickets with a spectacular average annual return of $1110/Yr, for about a 300% gain overall.
              Which brings us to garyo1954's latest reply to RL, when RL announced he would like to establish a new Digit Thread: ( 3 )
              Gary said, "RL, I would very much like to see you do that. I was getting a valuable lesson seeing what you do. I have a ton of notes, some of which I implemented into a program in an effort to replicate what you are doing. There is still much more to do and with no new information, I'm doing the best I can.  Jimmy? He's okay. His rants are underwhelming.  So do it! Let's get this ship moving."
               
              The above facts tell us two things.  One, the average QuickPick player who spends $360 per year in the MO-SM-5, and does not hit the Jackpot, WINS about $100 per year(losing $260).  Two, when RL-RANDOMLOGIC spends $360 on tickets, he WINS $1110!  Now, my calculator tells me that 1110/100 equals 11.1, which means that RL has a selection system which allows him to outperform QuickPick players by a factor of  ELEVEN to ONE!!!
               
              With this in mind, I have 2 questions for Gary, with special reference to "Let's get this ship moving."
               
               1) WHERE would you like "this ship" to take you?
               
               2) WHY would you want to leave port?
               
              You have a system functioning right now that performs at a phenomenal, stupendous, might I suggest "unbelievable" rate!  Why would you spend one more MINUTE trying to improve on what you have, rather than go out and make a killing?
               

              --Jimmy4164
              P.S.  Gary, rather than be true to form, I really hope you apply some of that intelligence that glimmers in your sarcasm to the facts presented here.
               
                

              "Has it ever occured to you that since I learned many years ago that it is impossible to do this, I don't even try?"

              RL, RJ, and Gary probably (and I certainly) have known for years what the probable outcome will be by playing QPs so once again you're telling us something we already knew. Yes it *occurred to me hitting a jackpot is difficult but can't be impossible. Go to any state lottery website and you'll see pictures of many players holding over-sized checks proving you learned nothing years ago. You ought to check the daily payouts before making any more ridiculous statements like it's impossible to show even a small profit.

              If you are the math guru of LP, please tell us the probabilities of players making a small profit based on the daily payouts.

              "The above facts tell us two things.  One, the average QuickPick player who spends $360 per year in the MO-SM-5, and does not hit the Jackpot, WINS about $100 per year(losing $260)"

              This is the Mathematics Forum not the Mystical Forum where people have no problem comparing apples to hand grenades. Show Me Cash has drawings every day so if RL plays 35 times a year that's in less than 10% of all the drawings. Your QP statistics are based on a one time bet of $360 and ironically similar to your illogical and unrealistic notion a large group of players would wager $3168 twice a week for a year playing PB.

              "Two, when RL-RANDOMLOGIC spends $360 on tickets, he WINS $1110! "

              Without even knowing how RL chooses his combos or his reasons for playing when he does, it really doesn't take very much intelligence to understand he only plays when his statistic show it's the best time to play. Your PA pick-3 evening statistics showed the number 308 hit 23 times in the over 33 drawing history so if players played that number in only 10% of the drawings (when their system showed the timing was right), they only needed to catch 308 nine times to equal RL's Show Me Cash results.

              But 23 is alot of hits; didn't you give statistics showing any number would average a hit every two or three years and only about 12 times in over 33 years?

              When lotteries started lotto type games people like Gail Howard made millions creating wheels and selling them in paperbacks with very little explanation of which numbers to wheel. When PCs became a household item, programs where created making it much easier for players to find ways to choose a group of between 12 and 18 numbers that consistently matched 2 or 3 numbers with an occasional 4 or all 5 numbers. You'll never understand that system players don't have to play in every drawing or play the same numbers every time because a huge bet to someone who sat in his Vegas hotel replying to LP is probably $5 worth of QPs when the MM jackpot was over $300 million.

              Don't bother telling us your imaginary 360 QPs would get the same results if you played them when RL made his bets because we already knew that.

              Any chance in the near future of you posting anything we don't already know?


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 2, 2011, 12:58 am - IP Logged

                "Has it ever occured to you that since I learned many years ago that it is impossible to do this, I don't even try?"

                RL, RJ, and Gary probably (and I certainly) have known for years what the probable outcome will be by playing QPs so once again you're telling us something we already knew. Yes it *occurred to me hitting a jackpot is difficult but can't be impossible. Go to any state lottery website and you'll see pictures of many players holding over-sized checks proving you learned nothing years ago. You ought to check the daily payouts before making any more ridiculous statements like it's impossible to show even a small profit.

                If you are the math guru of LP, please tell us the probabilities of players making a small profit based on the daily payouts.

                "The above facts tell us two things.  One, the average QuickPick player who spends $360 per year in the MO-SM-5, and does not hit the Jackpot, WINS about $100 per year(losing $260)"

                This is the Mathematics Forum not the Mystical Forum where people have no problem comparing apples to hand grenades. Show Me Cash has drawings every day so if RL plays 35 times a year that's in less than 10% of all the drawings. Your QP statistics are based on a one time bet of $360 and ironically similar to your illogical and unrealistic notion a large group of players would wager $3168 twice a week for a year playing PB.

                "Two, when RL-RANDOMLOGIC spends $360 on tickets, he WINS $1110! "

                Without even knowing how RL chooses his combos or his reasons for playing when he does, it really doesn't take very much intelligence to understand he only plays when his statistic show it's the best time to play. Your PA pick-3 evening statistics showed the number 308 hit 23 times in the over 33 drawing history so if players played that number in only 10% of the drawings (when their system showed the timing was right), they only needed to catch 308 nine times to equal RL's Show Me Cash results.

                But 23 is alot of hits; didn't you give statistics showing any number would average a hit every two or three years and only about 12 times in over 33 years?

                When lotteries started lotto type games people like Gail Howard made millions creating wheels and selling them in paperbacks with very little explanation of which numbers to wheel. When PCs became a household item, programs where created making it much easier for players to find ways to choose a group of between 12 and 18 numbers that consistently matched 2 or 3 numbers with an occasional 4 or all 5 numbers. You'll never understand that system players don't have to play in every drawing or play the same numbers every time because a huge bet to someone who sat in his Vegas hotel replying to LP is probably $5 worth of QPs when the MM jackpot was over $300 million.

                Don't bother telling us your imaginary 360 QPs would get the same results if you played them when RL made his bets because we already knew that.

                Any chance in the near future of you posting anything we don't already know?

                It's amazing how you concluded my calculations were based on a one time bet of $360.  It's also telling how you obfuscate my statements in general.  You should consider politics.

                Since you've made it clear that you know it all, it would be futile to try to teach you anything new.  Unfortunately, the real problem here is that the degree of your NEED to be in control results in such an extreme NEED to believe that RL can outmaneuver the randomness of 39 lottery objects with such precision and deftness that you are willing to overlook the utter implausibility of doing it successfully for over 20 years while maintaining an 11 to 1 edge year over year.  If he claimed 10% I might accept it as his luck of the draw, but 1110%, for 20 yrs, with no proof?  I don't think so!  <METAPHOR>You envision RL as a champion boxer with an uncanny ability to anticipate his opponent's punches and land his own with precision and power.  Wake up Stack!  You and/or RL do NOT have the benefit of the many cues available to a prizefighter.  You may THINK you do, but your field of vision does not include the eye contact and body language of your opponent; you are peering into the emptiness of a hole of infinite depth!</METAPHOR>

                If RL could prove his assertions I'm sure Nicholas Taleb would consider adding a discussion of his method to the next edition of his book, The Black Swan!

                You do have one consolation however, and I've said this quite a few times here.  Your NEED to BELIEVE will NOT cause you to LOSE any more than QuickPick players.  [ I know you hate this phrase, but ] on average, you will end up with roughly the same amount of [lottery] money in the bank as that QP player next door.  And if you are lucky enough to win a big one, you can tell everyone who interviews you at the photo-op that you did it with a SYSTEM.  You might even be able to swing a deal with Gail Howard for future royalties for attributing your win to HER system! Wink

                Since I probably haven't changed your thinking, I might as well ask you this again,

                "BTW, why would you shun a system with an 1110% edge?"

                Good luck!


                  United States
                  Member #93947
                  July 10, 2010
                  2180 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 2, 2011, 1:20 am - IP Logged

                  Do you ever get frustrated wondering WHY, when you carefully select sets with attributes that 95% of the previous winners have, you don't win any more than you do?  Maybe you need to join RL's team.

                  Why would I be frustrated when I picked from the same 175,711,536 possible combinations as the winners? Do QP players get frustrated when winners pick their own numbers?.  Just because I pick my combinations more deliberately than some doesn't entitle to a win.  When it comes to playing lotteries I like picking my numbers my way using my system and I'm sure RL feels the same way.

                  In the meantime, how do you feel about all the Jackpot winners who win with QuickPick purchases?  Should they wear QP caps?

                  What lottery winners choose to do is their business, but it would be nice to know if they were a LP member.

                  I really shouldn't be sarcastic with you RJ.  Although you may be a little taken in by the allure of some of the lottery fallacies, you have a complete understanding of the odds, and you definitely don't make outrageous claims of winnings like RL-RANDOMLOGIC!

                  Since I'm pretty sure you agree with me about betting to spread losses around by taking secondary wins in smaller pieces, I don't understand why you're usually on the other side of most controversies from me.  Politics?  OK. Wink

                    garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                    Dallas, Texas
                    United States
                    Member #4549
                    May 2, 2004
                    1678 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 2, 2011, 1:05 pm - IP Logged

                    Since RL has left the building, perhaps someone else can step up.

                    Here is what we are to currently understand about the workings of the DDM (Digit Distribution Method.)

                    Although back in May, 2010 RL informed a skeptical disciple that his system worked best with ball drop machines, he now concedes it doesn't really matter; it will work with any Draw method. (See Above)

                    It's very clear now - IT'S ALL ABOUT DIGITS, and has nothing to do with historical results.  I can stop complaining about conflicts between RL's claims and what most mere mortals experience in their dealings with Probability and Random Stochastic Processes.

                    OK.  But that leaves us with one LINGERING question...

                    WILL THIS SYSTEM WORK WITH ANY ARBITRARY NUMBER(Digit) SYSTEM?

                    If the answer is YES, I've provided some information below to help with an explanation of how this might be TRUE.  Please take note: I don't expect the settings in RL's program to be compatable with anything but a Base-10 counting system.  It would require a rewrite for another base.  Remember, counting in Base 10 using [0-9] is a completely arbitrary state of affairs.

                    I assume TRUTH is the ultimate goal here.  CORRECT?

                    Pay particular attention to the Base Twenty system, still used today by some people.  I wonder what revised DDM tables would tell us to do with the digit " 1 " ?

                      Click here for help with the RED question above.

                    --Jimmy4164

                    P.S.  If you don't TRULY understand or care about the significance of the red question above, please don't reply.

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

                    Having flashbacks this morning. Seems I recall reading a post about.....I assume TRUTH is the ultimate goal here. CORRECT?....with some assertion that is any of us morons stepped up and offered the TRUTH, you would recognize it.

                    Hello, king of the melting cheese ball!!!!

                    Your refusal to even attempt extraction gives us pause. If YOU were WRONG about a major fact upon which you based not one, but two threads, what else are you wrong about??

                    It questions your ability to calculate, or even understand, the worthless ROI.

                    It invalidates your validity in all things DDM.

                    How can we trust your Monte Carlo, when we can't trust the facts it is built on?

                    Such a disaster and has happened here, lends even MORE CREDENCE TO RL's THEORIES!!! Those same theories you had been critical of at every turn has taken the mud out of your pie!!!!!

                    While the disaster of basing two threads on a single idea and failing, questions EVERYTHING you present as fact!

                    RL showed facts; you offered fallacy.

                    For hence to thence, you should post your formulas upon which the figures you rely on are based. For all we morons know, you might be using base 47 for calculating that which you call fact.

                    To save any face, you should post pictures kissing babies and little furry creaures that go 'rarf' in the night.

                    It is your duty to teach a child to read! (Nah, skip this one. It might mess the kid up.)

                    Your connivalry has been clown suited! 

                     

                     

                     



                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 2, 2011, 3:17 pm - IP Logged

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

                      Having flashbacks this morning. Seems I recall reading a post about.....I assume TRUTH is the ultimate goal here. CORRECT?....with some assertion that is any of us morons stepped up and offered the TRUTH, you would recognize it.

                      Hello, king of the melting cheese ball!!!!

                      Your refusal to even attempt extraction gives us pause. If YOU were WRONG about a major fact upon which you based not one, but two threads, what else are you wrong about??

                      It questions your ability to calculate, or even understand, the worthless ROI.

                      It invalidates your validity in all things DDM.

                      How can we trust your Monte Carlo, when we can't trust the facts it is built on?

                      Such a disaster and has happened here, lends even MORE CREDENCE TO RL's THEORIES!!! Those same theories you had been critical of at every turn has taken the mud out of your pie!!!!!

                      While the disaster of basing two threads on a single idea and failing, questions EVERYTHING you present as fact!

                      RL showed facts; you offered fallacy.

                      For hence to thence, you should post your formulas upon which the figures you rely on are based. For all we morons know, you might be using base 47 for calculating that which you call fact.

                      To save any face, you should post pictures kissing babies and little furry creaures that go 'rarf' in the night.

                      It is your duty to teach a child to read! (Nah, skip this one. It might mess the kid up.)

                      Your connivalry has been clown suited! 

                       

                       

                       


                      Garyo1954,

                      "While the disaster of basing two threads on a single idea and failing, questions EVERYTHING you present as fact!"

                      Just what are you ranting about?

                      Failing to what?  Enlighten you?  So far, I guess I'm guilty of that.

                      "RL showed facts; you offered fallacy."

                      Are you referring to the fact that the majority of sets in a 5/39 lottery contain 5 or 6 digits?  Why Gary, that's not just a fact, it's a TRUISM!  Unfortunately, it doesn't help much when your goal is to match 5 numbers to the ones blowing in the winds of the lottery machines.  As everyone knows, you throw a lot of babies out with the bath water with that scheme.  Now, if you could get the (5,39) lotteries somehow to reject all sets Drawn but RL's coveted 5's and 6's, you might have something!

                      And what "fallacy" did I commit?

                      Are you sure you didn't mistakenly click Reply to the Post quoted while composing on the basis of another one viewed in another window?  It happens. Big Smile

                      --Jimmy4164

                        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                        Dallas, Texas
                        United States
                        Member #4549
                        May 2, 2004
                        1678 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 2, 2011, 4:32 pm - IP Logged

                        Jimboo-boo!!!!!

                        Might I suggest you go back and read the American Journal of Indian Education, Volume 33, Number 3, May 1994 for a clarification on your pitiful proffering regarding Yup'ik base 20? The good doctor was kind enough to detail every facet of the Yup'ik counting system including the fact they they lacked a symbolic representation for their numbers!

                        You, however, flailed in the big wind attempting to use disinformation, founded on disingenious intellectual oversight, if not connivalry, in an attempted coup. What devious details you omitted in an effort to derail RL's system!

                        Wherefore art thou, base 20? Why hast though forsaken Jimboo-boo at this hour of need?

                        It is unfortunate that one moron would test your validity and find it severely lacking in foundation! Jimboo-bo, you were clown suited by a moron!!!!!  Do you not see? This questions the entirety of everything you have posted and will post from this moment forward?

                        This questions your theories on everything you believe! Or will ever believe! YOU CAN'T TRUST YOURSELF TO THINK FOR YOU! And if you cannot be trusted to think for yourself, and post verifiable information, then we no longer have a reason to question if the clown suit fits!

                        You will need a bigger smoke screen for the rest of your post. TWO THREADS, Jimboo-boo!! This moron refused to give in to temptation of the first, but CLOWN SUITED YOU on the second, when you insisted on discussing a non-existent flaw in RL's system!

                        Moron = 1

                        Jimboo-boo = 0

                        Enjoy the circus!


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 2, 2011, 5:20 pm - IP Logged

                          Jimboo-boo!!!!!

                          Might I suggest you go back and read the American Journal of Indian Education, Volume 33, Number 3, May 1994 for a clarification on your pitiful proffering regarding Yup'ik base 20? The good doctor was kind enough to detail every facet of the Yup'ik counting system including the fact they they lacked a symbolic representation for their numbers!

                          You, however, flailed in the big wind attempting to use disinformation, founded on disingenious intellectual oversight, if not connivalry, in an attempted coup. What devious details you omitted in an effort to derail RL's system!

                          Wherefore art thou, base 20? Why hast though forsaken Jimboo-boo at this hour of need?

                          It is unfortunate that one moron would test your validity and find it severely lacking in foundation! Jimboo-bo, you were clown suited by a moron!!!!!  Do you not see? This questions the entirety of everything you have posted and will post from this moment forward?

                          This questions your theories on everything you believe! Or will ever believe! YOU CAN'T TRUST YOURSELF TO THINK FOR YOU! And if you cannot be trusted to think for yourself, and post verifiable information, then we no longer have a reason to question if the clown suit fits!

                          You will need a bigger smoke screen for the rest of your post. TWO THREADS, Jimboo-boo!! This moron refused to give in to temptation of the first, but CLOWN SUITED YOU on the second, when you insisted on discussing a non-existent flaw in RL's system!

                          Moron = 1

                          Jimboo-boo = 0

                          Enjoy the circus!

                          Garyo1954,

                          So this is what you're calling a fallacy,  describing a set of arbitrary number systems and mentioning that one of them is still in use when it turns out it lacks a complete set of digit labels?  Confused

                          The purpose of the Fingers & Toes thread is to show that the choice of BASE by humans in their counting systems is completely

                          A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y  !!

                          Do you get it yet Gary?  Maybe you had better look up "arbitrary" before answering that.  It wouldn't hurt to add fallacy to your list either.

                          In the meantime, if you really feel more comfortable with number systems that contain ONLY digits that are labeled in a way that you recognize, please take a look at the BASE 2, 4, or 8 systems.  Pick the one you like best, and then go back and RECONSIDER my questions.

                          Your entire rant above is really quite laughable.  To help save you from further embarrassment since you might feel you've had another "Eureka" moment when you can't find any humans who count in base 8, I'll give you a hint.  Computer types call it Octal, and use it a lot.

                          You jumped the gun, Gary, and it makes you look even more suited for the part you're trying to cast me in!  Clown

                          --Jimmy4164

                          P.S. You really are a glutton for punishment.  I don't enjoy this.  It's too easy.

                            garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                            Dallas, Texas
                            United States
                            Member #4549
                            May 2, 2004
                            1678 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 2, 2011, 6:21 pm - IP Logged

                            CAREFUL Jimboo-boo-boo!

                            Your CLOWN SHOES are growing!  

                            "....humans who count in base 8,.....Computer types call it Octal."

                            Does this mean all your stats and probability are worked out in Octal?  MIGHT BE YOUR BIG PROBLEM!  

                            No rant Jimboo-boo-boo, just the TRUTH that you were seeking. And now you flop, flail, and waffle.

                            The word is RESEARCH as in: When you post something, you should RESEARCH your ideas to ensure you aren't CLOWN SUITED by morons! Naturally, this moron knew you were upset when you didn't immediately rush back to claim it was all a misunderstanding, that poor Jimboo-boo-boo had been taken out of context, that no moron could understand what poor Jimboo-boo-boo was trying to establish. 

                            This was the funniest thing you have posted to date. My dog laughed himself to sleep!!!!

                            Remember, Stack and RL tried to stop you from wearing that jester outfit, but you insisted. Can you blame anyone for LAUGHING now?

                            Oh, Jimboo-boo-boo, if you think this moron is being rough, wait until next year when you get to the 3rd grade!

                              Avatar
                              Kentucky
                              United States
                              Member #32652
                              February 14, 2006
                              7302 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 2, 2011, 10:07 pm - IP Logged

                              It's amazing how you concluded my calculations were based on a one time bet of $360.  It's also telling how you obfuscate my statements in general.  You should consider politics.

                              Since you've made it clear that you know it all, it would be futile to try to teach you anything new.  Unfortunately, the real problem here is that the degree of your NEED to be in control results in such an extreme NEED to believe that RL can outmaneuver the randomness of 39 lottery objects with such precision and deftness that you are willing to overlook the utter implausibility of doing it successfully for over 20 years while maintaining an 11 to 1 edge year over year.  If he claimed 10% I might accept it as his luck of the draw, but 1110%, for 20 yrs, with no proof?  I don't think so!  <METAPHOR>You envision RL as a champion boxer with an uncanny ability to anticipate his opponent's punches and land his own with precision and power.  Wake up Stack!  You and/or RL do NOT have the benefit of the many cues available to a prizefighter.  You may THINK you do, but your field of vision does not include the eye contact and body language of your opponent; you are peering into the emptiness of a hole of infinite depth!</METAPHOR>

                              If RL could prove his assertions I'm sure Nicholas Taleb would consider adding a discussion of his method to the next edition of his book, The Black Swan!

                              You do have one consolation however, and I've said this quite a few times here.  Your NEED to BELIEVE will NOT cause you to LOSE any more than QuickPick players.  [ I know you hate this phrase, but ] on average, you will end up with roughly the same amount of [lottery] money in the bank as that QP player next door.  And if you are lucky enough to win a big one, you can tell everyone who interviews you at the photo-op that you did it with a SYSTEM.  You might even be able to swing a deal with Gail Howard for future royalties for attributing your win to HER system! Wink

                              Since I probably haven't changed your thinking, I might as well ask you this again,

                              "BTW, why would you shun a system with an 1110% edge?"

                              Good luck!

                              "It's amazing how you concluded my calculations were based on a one time bet of $360."

                              You missed where I said "Don't bother telling us your imaginary 360 QPs would get the same results if you played them when RL made his bets because we already knew that". And I could have added 360 $1 bets or any possible combination of bets equaling $360 and the results would be exactly the same. Apparently I was wrong when I thought you knew 72% of 360 always equals 259.2 no matter how you divide the 360 bets.

                              "Unfortunately, the real problem here is that the degree of your NEED to be in control results in such an extreme NEED to believe that RL can outmaneuver the randomness of 39 lottery objects with such precision and deftness that you are willing to overlook the utter implausibility of doing it successfully for over 20 years while maintaining an 11 to 1 edge year over year."

                              Nobody but you and maybe Pumpi believe the results can be controlled. I'm satisfied the drawings are random and when you think about it, every player should believe they have a random chance to win or they shouldn't be buying tickets. For various reasons, system players look at a group of numbers and decide if those numbers can produce a profit and if the answer is yes, they play accordingly. There is no guarantee of showing a profit but unless the drawing is rigged, there is no reason to believe it's impossible to show a 377% profit making 8 to 15 line calulated bets 25 to 35 times a year either.

                              For $8 I can use all 39 number, but after 25 tries using LP's RNG, not one time did I get 8 lines of numbers that included all 39 numbers. I'm not wasting money testing the lottery terminals RNG because I know the results will be about the same.

                              If you know the drawings are random and any 5 of 39 numbers can be drawn, why would you buy 8 random QPs knowing that two or more numbers won't be on your tickets?

                              You never explained where you got the 28% house edge for 5/39 games and even though I'm skeptical of your math because it seems odd the house edge on pick-3 and pick-4 games is almost 50% higher, but I don't want to argue so I'll give your figures some wiggle room. The fact is at a 28% house edge, the house will payoff $720,000 for every $1 million in wagers and that certainly gives RL and other players lots of opportunities to show a $1000 profit after a years worth of wagers.

                              "you are willing to overlook the utter implausibility of doing it successfully for over 20 years while maintaining an 11 to 1 edge year over year"

                              The 5/39 Show Me Cash's drawings began less than 5 years ago as RL already said. This discussion is about that game so get with the program, Jimmy. No reason to spin the facts.

                              "<METAPHOR>You envision RL as a champion boxer with an uncanny ability to anticipate his opponent's punches and land his own with precision and power.  Wake up Stack!  You and/or RL do NOT have the benefit of the many cues available to a prizefighter.  You may THINK you do, but your field of vision does not include the eye contact and body language of your opponent; you are peering into the emptiness of a hole of infinite depth!</METAPHOR>"

                              For starters RL only has to outpoint his opponent to win the fight and winning on points can be the only outcome because a knockout would be the same as hitting a jackpot. RL's figures are based on 2, 3, and/or 4 number matches without a knockout jackpot. Basically your metaphor is saying a third rate pug would pay $100 to get his brains bashed in by the champ.

                              You have to buy 10 QPs before you can expect to match 2 numbers and collect $1, 103 QPs to match 3 number and collect $10, and 3387 QPs to collect $250 matching 4 numbers. Since we're comparing non jackpot winning statistics, you can expect to collect around 20 bucks for every $100 you spend and far below the $72 you expected.

                              I can understand someone buying 360 QPs when the jackpot is high knowing they would be extreme lucky to collect half their bet, but we're talking about 360 tickets a years to make a profit without winning the jackpot. Your comparisons suggest somebody would buy 360 QPs with no chance of winning the jackpot with an expectation of losing at least $100 and a third rate pug without a knockout punch paying $100 to fight when his only hope of winning is if the champ chewed off one of his ears.

                              Talk about comparing apples to hand grenades!

                              "BTW, why would you shun a system with an 1110% edge?"

                              Because I don't live in Missouri and I moved from Ohio where I got $300 for matching 4 numbers playing Rolling Cash 5. Besides the KY pick-3 pays $600 to $1 making it an even trade off for not offering a 5/39 game. Do you have any ideas that might help to make a 377% profit playing KY's pick-3?

                              Opps I forgot, scratch that; you're not here to help, just here to bash systems players.