Welcome Guest
You last visited May 21, 2018, 12:40 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# What is a lottery system? What distinguishes a lottery system from guesses, dreams and quick picks?

Topic closed. 918 replies. Last post 7 years ago by mayhem.

 Page 10 of 62
Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 8:22 pm - IP Logged

truecritic

My software is a system and anyone who inputs the same data will receive the exact same output

which can also be be done using a pen and paper.  The choices one must make are not part of the

system.  The basic rules are the same for every game.  Since the draws follow the matrix it only makes

sense that the matrix should be used as a guide.  If 40% of the sets in the matrix have six total digits

then 40% of the draws will have six digits.  Selecting six digits from a pool of 10 is much easier then

selecting 5 numbers from 39.  If 33% of the sets in the matrix have two digit 1's then 33% of the draws

will have two digit 1's.  That is the digit system.  Why play a set of numbers that has only 2 digits that

make up the entire set of five numbers as in the set 01-11-12-21-22 when only  18 out of the 575757

sets have only two digits.  While it is true that every number has the same odds of being drawn the

digits do not.  I choose to play on the days that I think that the set will include 5 or 6 digits.  How, when

and what I play is not part of the system but my personal choices based on how I interpet the data which

is something that I have given a few pointers but will not reveal.  Not so much that I am holding back it

is just that every game will have it's own dips and sways and if you try to use my logic for your game then

it's not going to work.  No system will ever be invented where you can pust a button and it spits out the

winning set and no one will ever come up with a single set of rules that will work for every game, can't be

done.  If someone tries to tell you they can then don't believe it for a second.

I hope this clears things up.

RL

RL

I think that is what I said.

Quote:  "You have a combination of rules and the other part where you make some kind of choice of which numbers to play and how many tickets to purchase.  And that is the difference between a system and a methodology."

I understand you are attempting to separate the two.  The "mechanical" part, anyone can do.  The personal choices when it comes to actually choosing the digits/numbers and how many to play is not repeatable by others.  So in order to go from zero to a complete bet you must do both parts.  And that complete procedure constitutes a methodology.

joplin
United States
Member #45299
August 17, 2006
153 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 8:44 pm - IP Logged

I consider q/p's and s/p's about the same.  I looked up the

word System, I don't think its a stretch that the term System,

can be applied to both.

There may even be a science to q/p's, there are so many ways

to pick numbers at random.  I have a friend that plays p/3, all

q/p's, he won 6 out of 8  plays, straight.  Then he went over 12

plays, before hitting again.

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 9:51 pm - IP Logged

I consider q/p's and s/p's about the same.  I looked up the

word System, I don't think its a stretch that the term System,

can be applied to both.

There may even be a science to q/p's, there are so many ways

to pick numbers at random.  I have a friend that plays p/3, all

q/p's, he won 6 out of 8  plays, straight.  Then he went over 12

plays, before hitting again.

This has been pointed out by others here, a QP can ONLY be a quick pick if purchased at the lottery terminal and is marked as a quick pick.  It is not the same as any other way of choosing a number - the lottery commission defines it that way.

If your friend bought QPs from the lottery store and got that kind of results, he is extremely lucky for that kind of success and only a total of 8 plays.  Ask anyone.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20207 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 10:14 pm - IP Logged

For me, a system is a program that pick combinations within parameters I choose.  If I want all 56 MegaMillions core numbers in 12 lines, it does it.  If I want all 46 megaballs in 46 lines, it does it.  If I want 10 lines for the next MegaMillions drawing that have no combinations of threes from previous drawings, no sets of sequential numbers, sums between 100 and 200 and what ever else I can dream up, it does it.  It doesn't have to be repeatable because no matter how restrictive my parameters are, there are probable several thousands possible combinations that will match them and since I only want a sampling of them a few picked randomly is fine with me.

Some may not call that a system but that's how I roll when playing the lotteries.  When I lose, I lose on my own terms.

I haven't seen any evidence that players picking their own combinations are less likely to win than players using quick picks.  Even official websites state 70% of tickets sold are QP and 70% of their winners are QPs which explain why more winners are QPs while also indicating that the 30% that pick their own numbers also claim 30% of the prizes.  I know the players using quick picks that win jackpots and second prizes are doing better than most players using quick picks and the same must be true for players picking their own numbers.  The player using QP can only buy more tickets to improve his chances but the players who picks his number may be able to improve his odds a little by eliminating repetition, avoid repeating past combinations since combinations seldom repeat, playing more numbers with fewer lines and etc.

Anyone interested in comparing their style of playing can simply post their numbers on the prediction board and see what happens, that what I do.

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

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 11:16 pm - IP Logged

visiondude

You need to clean your specs.  Your logic is flawed and the fact that jimmy agrees just proves this.

First one must know what percent of SP's are true system plays and not birthdays, dream numbers

road signs, license plates, coin flipping, dice rolling, rocky mountain highs, legs on a table, clouds,

in th sky, turns of a jack in a box, remote viewing, barcodes, handed down by God, delivered by angles,

and eeny meeny miney mo just to name a few.   Just look at jimmy's maddog challenge analysis to see

what even he can't see.  A few are making out like bandits while others are left holding door.   Too make

assumptions biased on ones own thoughts is shortsided.   Very few overall really tackle system play

at the level needed to produces results.  There are professionals that exist in every field I know of, consider

the bass masters, anyone can fish but very few can catch trophys day in day out.  I like archery and

many years ago we had a challenge between the local PD and archers.  The PD team shot sidearms

and we shot arrows.  The best shots from each shot a range of targets and to make a long story short

With only a few systems performing at levels better then the odds would suggest unless you tracked

those systems alone and for a year or so it would be very unlikely that they could be detected using

any data gotten from a lottery website.  This is the problem when appliying statistics to the lottery.

Unless a  system is capable of hitting JP's very often then at best a small SD would be all that was

needed to explain it away.  Find me the data that shows all hits for true system play for all prize levels

verses QP's and I will be the first to accept it but until then the 70/30 rule is irrelevant because it is

incomplete.

I was beginning to think that this would be a good post until all the "you can't do it" crowd started

showing up.  System players know what you think and why you think it but they want to try finding

something that might help.  The YCDI'S  however for some reason can't stand letting them try.

Jimmy is not going to stop until he reaches top LP poster of all time with what anyone with web

access can get by viewing the lottery homepage.  Maybe someday the state lotteries will include

on the home page a section on Self Picks and system play but until then I guess I will have to endure

the attacks.

I don't know it all but guess what, no one does.  Each time I learn something new It  just shows me

how far I have to go.  I use to get so many PM's from people who would not post because of the

negitive replies they though it would receive.   So much good information is suppressed and cast aside

and may never see the light of day because of fear of rejection.   Suffer the little children and forbid

them not.   The implications could be catastrophic when compared to spending a few extra bucks on a

method that may or may not work.

RL

" Very few overall really tackle system play at the level needed to produces results".

i don't mean to be sarcastic,  but i do mean to prove a point that no one demonstrates sustained repeatability enough to prove "systems" work,  and that most pointedly now includes you.  are you saying it's just because you don't assign enough "effort" towards it that you couldn't singlehandedly prove the naysayers wrong?

this is what i am getting at....the hypotheSIZING to explain away that "it works",  without the hypothesizer actually fleshing out the hypothesis.

been here at LP 9 years.  never seen one so called seriously devoted "enough" to produce repeated sustainability.

been a witness to a ton "hits" here and there, and people jumping up and down claiming they could.

but zero examples of demonstrated (after they were asked to do so)  sustained repeatability over time.

bass fishing and archery can have science and matematical equations applied to them to increase ones succes.  that is a true statement.  but no one has the ability to tweak a random event on any level to manipulate it's outcome.

that's impossible.

my deal at LP is to help people return their thinking process to a sustained level of sensibility over the powers of wishful thinking, and guess what.....i came up with a new ephiphany,  and one that matches your latest claim that only those who cast rediculous amounts of "serious effort" towards the lottery will ever overtake the odds,  and return them back to the player.

i know 'common sense' has become a dirty phrase in this particular thread,  but here it comes again,  and you just provided another stage for it's appearance...

you said only the really really really really "serious players" have a chance at it,  and common sense states that's bogus,  because just as soon as the lottery commisions ever sensed that were remotely 'true',  they would change the matrix,  the ball drawing methodology,  and everything about the game that would immediately flush all that "hard work" down the drain.

so you see,  you are really preaching ultimate futillity.

no one can create an edge now, and even if you could alter reality,  "they" would put you square back into the stone age,  lottery predictability-speaking.   talk about a waste of time intially,  and in the future tense.

there is a reason that 70/30 standard has never moved a stitch.   if systems worked,  and surely as many brilliant lottery minds that LP showcased over the years,  that watermark would have flip flopped by now.

that one single fact,  that systems havent even made it 60/40 speaks volumnes

even the systems sellers  cannot move that mark a stitch

RL said.......... " Suffer the little children and forbid  them not".

RL,  i don't even know the words i need to use in describing how you so do NOT want to be the purveyor of wishful thinking to people who feel they are desperate enough to believe the lottery can be manipulated to ones advanatge.

especially a guy like you that might actually know the derivitive of that quote.

"i am .........."meant to"

P.S.,  that RJoH  is a stand up guy.  thanks,  vision

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 11:33 pm - IP Logged

Luck does not exist. Talk of luck in a mathematics forum? Everything is cause and effect. Nothing more, nothing less. Thier are no infallible systems. So what. There are plenty of imperfect strategies that people use to make money beyond what QPs would generate. At least for pick 3. Isn't that enough?

you see, i wouldn't have a problem with that explanation,  if that were remotely true.

the trouble becomes when someone experiences a win,  then they tell people it was because of thier "system",  then the collective desperation contained with 100,000+ members kicks in spreading the desperating within wishful thinking, because now they think they have the ability also.

......well,  you can see where that conspiracy spiralls out of control.

i would love nothing more than to see that was true.

the last thing  visiondude wants to be is a dream killer to obtainable dreams.

if it could be done.....you could bet your life i would be a facillitator.

if i do win (and i think i will, otherwise i wouldn't be here in the 1st place),  the last thing  i am going to intimate to another person is that they can do it too.

that's the "bad ju ju" that systems work.   even in pick 3

"i am .........."meant to"

P.S.,  that RJoH  is a stand up guy.  thanks,  vision

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 11:34 pm - IP Logged

For me, a system is a program that pick combinations within parameters I choose.  If I want all 56 MegaMillions core numbers in 12 lines, it does it.  If I want all 46 megaballs in 46 lines, it does it.  If I want 10 lines for the next MegaMillions drawing that have no combinations of threes from previous drawings, no sets of sequential numbers, sums between 100 and 200 and what ever else I can dream up, it does it.  It doesn't have to be repeatable because no matter how restrictive my parameters are, there are probable several thousands possible combinations that will match them and since I only want a sampling of them a few picked randomly is fine with me.

Some may not call that a system but that's how I roll when playing the lotteries.  When I lose, I lose on my own terms.

I haven't seen any evidence that players picking their own combinations are less likely to win than players using quick picks.  Even official websites state 70% of tickets sold are QP and 70% of their winners are QPs which explain why more winners are QPs while also indicating that the 30% that pick their own numbers also claim 30% of the prizes.  I know the players using quick picks that win jackpots and second prizes are doing better than most players using quick picks and the same must be true for players picking their own numbers.  The player using QP can only buy more tickets to improve his chances but the players who picks his number may be able to improve his odds a little by eliminating repetition, avoid repeating past combinations since combinations seldom repeat, playing more numbers with fewer lines and etc.

Anyone interested in comparing their style of playing can simply post their numbers on the prediction board and see what happens, that what I do.

Let me pass on what I mean by repeatable.  I mean duplicate, mechanical, no personal judgement.

RJ, I think you exactly described what I mean.  I'm in complete agreement with you.  Whatever parameters you choose, you use.  Now if you sold/gave away all your databases, described everything that you do - lets go with your example: "all 56 lines MM core numbers in 12 lines, it does it"

If someone had all your databases, they could also get "all 56 lines MM core numbers in 12 lines, it does it"

They are able to duplicate exactly what you did - there is no secret personal judgement involved.

Once there is personal judgement that someone else cannot duplicate, it becomes a methodology.

These are terms that have been used in horse racing for at least 20 to 30 years.  I didn't make them up.  It makes it convenient to discuss a topic so that everyone is on the same page without detailing everything every time there is a discussion.

Thanks, RJ, I hope they get it now.

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2011, 11:52 pm - IP Logged

i needed to point out an inequity in a system advocates ability to qualify that systems supposedly work,  and that is when they make the statement  ........"my system may work for me,  but it may not work for you"

common sense land says that's not remotely true,  because systems are state / game specific,  and have no idea who is plinking the same methodology / numbers.

it's not like a system is gender bias,  or cares whether or not one foot is in n. carolina,  and the other one is in GA,  while you are entering the data on your smart phone.

ok,  i know that is an over the top demonstration of the rediculousness that some people write off as "true",  but it sure is an effective analogy.

if a system worked for one person,  it would work for every person that ever applied the same moethodology to the same game, and it would work on a consistent basis with every person who used it until the lottery changed it's "methodology".

that is what's factual.

the idea that "success" floats in and out of successland breeds nothing but luck, etc.

repeatability or nothing,  to every person that applied that same methodology

"i am .........."meant to"

P.S.,  that RJoH  is a stand up guy.  thanks,  vision

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 12:44 am - IP Logged

This article discusseses some research results that I think can help all of us better understand some of our perceptions, especially in regard to our understanding and interpretation of random events.  I believe the reason why two people can observe the same scene, or painting, or string of numbers, and arrive at two distinctly different conclusions about what they see, is a fascinating area for research.  This article is a starting point to try to understand these differences.

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 1:06 am - IP Logged

Visiondude:  Thanks for your posts.  It's possible I've done you an injustice.  If I have, I apologize.  If I haven't, I still apologize for having said what I said without going to the trouble of reading your history of posts before arriving where I have in my attitude toward you.

(1) there was no injustice by you,  perceived by me

(2) there are no apologies required from you,  by me

i do appreciate your post,  especially your demonstration of calm,  because what normally happens in here when i throw at an opposing view is most people eventually lose their cool, and then descend into attack mode,  or the cry baby "i am such a victim" thang.

seems to be a man of a solid position in life shouldn't feel all hot and bothered when someone comes along and challenges their position.

i know it bothers me none when people question mine.

my goal at LP is to throw out an opposing view to get people to think about their choices concerning lottery play,  it is not to make people mad intentionally.

living to fight with people is even more of a waste of time then pursuing the lottery on the basis of forcing something to happen

i wish you well in your lottery pursuit,

VISION

"i am .........."meant to"

P.S.,  that RJoH  is a stand up guy.  thanks,  vision

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

Fort Worth, TX
United States
Member #106060
February 11, 2011
188 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 1:12 am - IP Logged

Buying more tickets and gaining more coverage is the only system then? There seriously isn't anymore logic to apply than that? I hightly doubt that the people here who seem to be promoting this belief with an almost jihadist fervor really take it to heart.

How you do anything is how you do everything.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20207 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 1:17 am - IP Logged

Let me pass on what I mean by repeatable.  I mean duplicate, mechanical, no personal judgement.

RJ, I think you exactly described what I mean.  I'm in complete agreement with you.  Whatever parameters you choose, you use.  Now if you sold/gave away all your databases, described everything that you do - lets go with your example: "all 56 lines MM core numbers in 12 lines, it does it"

If someone had all your databases, they could also get "all 56 lines MM core numbers in 12 lines, it does it"

They are able to duplicate exactly what you did - there is no secret personal judgement involved.

Once there is personal judgement that someone else cannot duplicate, it becomes a methodology.

These are terms that have been used in horse racing for at least 20 to 30 years.  I didn't make them up.  It makes it convenient to discuss a topic so that everyone is on the same page without detailing everything every time there is a discussion.

Thanks, RJ, I hope they get it now.

Let me pass on what I mean by repeatable.  I mean duplicate, mechanical, no personal judgement.

Unfortunately for jackpot games, no such system exists unless you're playing birthdays or other particular dates.  At best when you set parameters for your picks, regardless of how restrictive they are, there are hundreds of possible combinations that fit those parameters and at best you can only play a small sampling of them.  There's a bit of randomness built into every system and people get different results using the same systems with the same inputs.

There's nothing unique about my MM database, it's the same data on this website and the websites of states that sell MM tickets.  Yet if I discribed how I came up with 10 lines to play using that data I'm sure 20 other people would come with 20 different set of 10 lines to play.

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

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4772 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 5:57 am - IP Logged

" Very few overall really tackle system play at the level needed to produces results".

i don't mean to be sarcastic,  but i do mean to prove a point that no one demonstrates sustained repeatability enough to prove "systems" work,  and that most pointedly now includes you.  are you saying it's just because you don't assign enough "effort" towards it that you couldn't singlehandedly prove the naysayers wrong?

this is what i am getting at....the hypotheSIZING to explain away that "it works",  without the hypothesizer actually fleshing out the hypothesis.

been here at LP 9 years.  never seen one so called seriously devoted "enough" to produce repeated sustainability.

been a witness to a ton "hits" here and there, and people jumping up and down claiming they could.

but zero examples of demonstrated (after they were asked to do so)  sustained repeatability over time.

bass fishing and archery can have science and matematical equations applied to them to increase ones succes.  that is a true statement.  but no one has the ability to tweak a random event on any level to manipulate it's outcome.

that's impossible.

my deal at LP is to help people return their thinking process to a sustained level of sensibility over the powers of wishful thinking, and guess what.....i came up with a new ephiphany,  and one that matches your latest claim that only those who cast rediculous amounts of "serious effort" towards the lottery will ever overtake the odds,  and return them back to the player.

i know 'common sense' has become a dirty phrase in this particular thread,  but here it comes again,  and you just provided another stage for it's appearance...

you said only the really really really really "serious players" have a chance at it,  and common sense states that's bogus,  because just as soon as the lottery commisions ever sensed that were remotely 'true',  they would change the matrix,  the ball drawing methodology,  and everything about the game that would immediately flush all that "hard work" down the drain.

so you see,  you are really preaching ultimate futillity.

no one can create an edge now, and even if you could alter reality,  "they" would put you square back into the stone age,  lottery predictability-speaking.   talk about a waste of time intially,  and in the future tense.

there is a reason that 70/30 standard has never moved a stitch.   if systems worked,  and surely as many brilliant lottery minds that LP showcased over the years,  that watermark would have flip flopped by now.

that one single fact,  that systems havent even made it 60/40 speaks volumnes

even the systems sellers  cannot move that mark a stitch

RL said.......... " Suffer the little children and forbid  them not".

RL,  i don't even know the words i need to use in describing how you so do NOT want to be the purveyor of wishful thinking to people who feel they are desperate enough to believe the lottery can be manipulated to ones advanatge.

especially a guy like you that might actually know the derivitive of that quote.

Visiondude

I know now that I have been wasting my time here trying to explain something that seems to

be way over the heads of some.  I am beginning to experience a little frustration that must be

very similar to yours in your quest to prove God exist.  Just can't be done, for every proof you can

give I can give two that explain it away.   I will however list in order the things that I have claimed

and attempt one more time to slience the zealous critics.

#1   My system is a system

#2   My system has a definable set of rules that have been explained very clearly

The fact that it is misunderstood is a result of not being able to think outside the box.

#3   My system is not based on the odds for the game nor does it predict anything

#4   My system Is not to be measured by how many winning numbers it produces each run

#5   My system is designed to produce the smartest lines that can be gotten based on the matrix and the

users imputs.

#6   My system performs at 100% , 100% of the time.

#7   My software does in a few seconds what could take years to do on paper.

#8   My system requires the user to make choices based on the population and distrubition of values within the matrix

#9   My system will not produce Jackpots if the user makes mistakes in the input stage.

#10 My system will produce many lower prizes even if the inputs are selected incorrectly.

#11 My system has basic inputs that are very easy to predict and more complex inputs that are not.

#12 My system will produce the JP set every time the correct inputs are entered.

#13 My system produces its own odds which can be calculated using real math.

#13 My system is not based on numbers but strings of digits.

#14 My system is not effected by the so called randomness of the draw.

If the measure of a system is based on it's ability to hit jackpots then I would give my system a A+

If the measure of a system is based on it's repeatability then I would give my system a A+

If the measure of a system is based on what the user inputs then I would give my system a A+

and the user can judge his/her own performance.

The balls bouncing around and the balls falling out of the hopper is just an illusion as to what is really

going on in a draw.  The full set already exist in the matrix.  Think of a large wheel similar to the one

used on the game show "The Price is Right."  Now imagine that every set / line is written somewhere

on the wheel.  For my 5-39 game you would have 575757 spaces on the wheel.  Give the wheel a spin

and see where it stops.  This would make a very good way to conduct the draw but many would  not

trust it for obivious reasons.  The balls in a hopper do not control the randomness of the draw but

are shown to convince the ticket holder that the draw is fair because how could they cheat with all the

bouncing going on.   You can pick your numbers and hope the correct five or six fall out making you the

winner but this is not the case for most.  I believe that if you are picking numbers soley based only what

was drawn in past you are wasting your time.  If you count all the numbers on the big wheel you will

find that each number shows the exact number of times but if you count the digits you will find that there

is a very big difference in the totals.  You will also find that the digit (1) can be found on 509977? of the

spaces while poor digit (0) only gets 198765? spaces or lines.  Now any serious player must be able by

using very simple math be able to tell you that digit (1) will show 2.56 more times in any one spin then

digit (0). how hard is that to understand.  If however digit (0) has not shown for several days then one

might conclude that since 198765 spaces on the wheel have a digit (0) then some very simple math can

be used to calculate the odds of it missing again.  Be very careful here in the way you interpet this data.

If you think that it will hit because it is due to hit then you would fall into the gamblers fallacy. However

if you see correctly that it is a matter of the wheel stoping on any one space that does not have a (0)

then this is not.  To do this correctly you must know the times it appears on the wheel ie matrix and think

of the next drawing as just the wheel starting up again and then spinning to a stop.  Remember the balls

bouncing around mean nothing because the full set already exist in the matrix.   It is very hard for people

to forget the random actions of the draw and to stop thinking in terms of numbers but as jimmy says so

often it is very liberating to know the truth.   The sets or lines of numbers / digits on the wheel could be

mixed up in any order and it would not matter.  The wheel will stop on one of the lines and it does not

matter which unless you only count jackpots.  Playing digits without regaurd to the numbers they form

is the digit system.  Pick the digits in accordance to the population while paying attention to where the

wheel stopped in a few past draws will in my opinion fair much better.  At the end of the draw I count

how many of the digits I got correct and that is what I base how well I am doing.  Match the correct

digits and you win.  I have been doing this for so long I cannot even think of the draw in terms of

numbers.  I am not here to down play any system that anyone is using, If it works for them then I would

pat them on the back and say good job.  I guess I could post my digit selections but then again why

would I need to.  I think most could use the 1-2-3 rule and pick 2 or 3 more at random.  How many people

would need to post most days for someone to match them all being that there are only 35 combinations

if you use 6 total digits and 21 if using 5 along with the base 1-2-3.

RL

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4772 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 7:08 am - IP Logged

PS

Your remarks about common sense are unfounded because what is common to one is uncommon to another.

You say that no one has demonstrated substained repeatability which is something I think I have done.  It

may prove to fair better for some then others but this is also something that is to be expected.  The digit system

is also impervious to attempts to by officals to counteract it as long as the draw remains fair.  This may not be

for the average player who has a budget of a few dollars a week but when I posted this system I had hopes

that someone a little more gifted could take it to the next level.  I know the incompleteness of this system but

it has some very good basic structures.  The lottery is little more then a scam taking money away from the people

who can least afford to play. I would personally like to see it torn down and done away with.  I am fighting a system

that plays the promise of riches without any real substance behind it.   Sure a few people win and maybe it is life

changing for those few but the average player has no real chance to ever realise the dream.  That some feel the

need to attack a system they don't fully understand while supporting  the bad guys is beyound me.  If what you

say is true that no one at LP has ever came up with a true system then I would give all the credit to the critics

that are so willing to tear down what others are trying to build.  Remember the rules for a house divided,  I stand

behind my system and the fact that a few inicents may suffer has never been sufficient reason to do nothing.  I am

not nearly as incomptent as I sometimes may appear.  I waited many years before posting this information for

reasons that are my own but also because of the attacks it would draw.   While many have seen promise I have

yet to receive any real building blocks that can be added.  I have had many who have suggested many ideas which

some were very good others wern't.  I don't putdown the bad because I have made thousands of attempts that

were very bad.  I plan to stay the course and maybe I will someday discover the few remaining pieces to the puzzel.

RL

?

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4772 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2011, 7:21 am - IP Logged

PS #2

no manipulation?,  the simple are often used to confound the wise and of such.....

RL

 Page 10 of 62