Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 1:12 pm
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 6 years ago by mayhem.

Page 11 of 62
3.73
PrintE-mailLink
Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
FEMA Region V Camp #21
United States
Member #520
July 27, 2002
5699 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 29, 2011, 10:25 am - IP Logged

There is no 'right' way to play or win the lottery.  There are as many variations as there are players.  It's pointless to get worked up over it.

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


    truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
    Michigan
    United States
    Member #22395
    September 24, 2005
    1583 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 29, 2011, 12:06 pm - IP Logged

    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.

    "There's a bit of randomness built... "

    Duly noted.


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 29, 2011, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

      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

      RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

      Since you have stated on many occasions that you are not guilty of the Gambler's Fallacy, I was surprised that your 14 points above didn't include a rule forcing you to deal only with the configuation of the matrix, never looking back.  But then I noticed that you said, "I believe that if you are picking numbers soley based only what was drawn in past you are wasting your time."  Could it be that your qualification with the word "soley" is what prohibits you from making this your point #15?

      I have a simple question for you motivated by the puzzlement I experience each time I see you make references to your need to make frequent adjustments to your program parameters:

      What methods would you employ to set your program parameters if you were tasked with selecting a set of bets in a (5,39) Lotto game for the OPENING DAY DRAW in a state that previously did not have such a game?  For discussion purposes, let's assume it's a mechanical ball drop drawing system.

      I really hope you can approach this question calmly and briefly.  I am not asking you to reveal specifics of your filtering techniques.  All I am looking for is a concise explanation of how your system works without looking back.

      --Jimmy4164

        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
        Dallas, Texas
        United States
        Member #4549
        May 2, 2004
        1691 Posts
        Online
        Posted: March 29, 2011, 2:50 pm - IP Logged

        RL....

        GREAT to see you back posting! Very interesting how you mention the similarities of this thread and discussions of God. Last night I had those same thoughts. It's so true!!! The entire mess(?) is a loop argument that goes up and down like the windows on the bus.

        There is no.....(fill in the blank)

        There is a........

        No, there isn't or I'd find....

        Have you looked everywhere?

        I don't have too. I only need a small sampling to say for a fact there is no.....

        And the wheels go round and round.

        It's like Mok and Rok watching Krok rub sticks together.

        Mok: What he doing?

        Rok: Don't know. Say he make fire.

        Mok: What fire?

        Rok: Don't know. He idiot. LOL

        Krok jumps up screaming, consumed in flames.

        Mok: What he doing with strange orange stuff?

        Rok: Don't know. Must be fire. LOL He idiot.

        Mok: LOL Bet he no do again. Idiot.

        The way I see all these 'sustainability' arguments are pie in the sky requirements for what is achievable. That thinking is throw out all probability and stats, give me a program that produces the winning combination for any game I choose, any night I choose to play. That's all they care to see. 

        But, as you have seen, when a system come along that exceeds even the minimum standards of probability, they can't accept it.

        So how can it be a person who wants a system that helps them win, when presented with a system that is a VAST improvement over what they currently have, be so against that new system?

        As I see it, throughout this thread, the discussion hasn't centered on saying no system works. As I read back through it, there are those who say, "There is not a system that works to my expectations."

        And the other side saying, "It meets my expectations, so it works."

        And then the Loop starts.....wrong....right....wrong....right...ad infinitum. Sounds like Coke...Pepsi...Coke...Pepsi....Coke....Pepsi.....

        NOBODY has a RIGHT to DEMAND PROOF on PERSONAL PREFERENCE. It seems most often when they do, they go in with the idea they can find something wrong, or something lacking, or some flaw that they use to discredit it. Look at Jimmy's claim that he improved RickG's system and then derided RickG's winning percentage.

        There is a point, RL, where you have to say, "Good Luck finding something to meet your expectations" when people's expectations are way beyond reasonable.

        These people who want the perfect system would give up in little time and without much effort, if told, "Do it yourself." No doubt, some already have based on the many posts that say, "If it were possible, it would have already been done" or the "If I can't do it, nobody can."

        You're ideas and your system is by far the one that impresses me most with regard to the larger jackpot games. It would seem anything that puts a jackpot within one's reach would be lauded.

        I can't wrap my mind around people who want something, and when given something, refuse to see it is better than what they have.

        It is good to see you back! Right now I need to get back to work and run some new tables to see where that leads.

        Big Smile

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7310 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 29, 2011, 3:43 pm - IP Logged

          "Is a system by your definition that always works, but loses money in the long run better than a method that is designed to and does hit the jackpot once?"

          If by design you CAN make up a system (a set of rules) that will hit the lottery once and say so and proceed to do just that, I would concede it is a winning system.   (Or the reverse, invent a system and say it will lose.  It would still be a system albeit a bad system.) 

          Like going to the moon, perhaps the moon was exactly a certain distance from the earth and all the rules and math were geared to those figures - those particular system calculations may work only once in a lifetime.  If you can come up with something like that and declare you will win MM on this coming Friday and do so, then I will concede you indeed have a winning system.   The repeatability part is that anyone using the same set of rules can accomplish exactly what you accomplish.  Instead of the word repeatability, use the word duplicate to mean the same thing.

          However, I believe you don't have to show a profit to be using a system.  There are certainly good systems and bad systems - profit is a separate issue.  Yes, your 2 if 5 wheel is a system.  The numbers you play can be equal to any quick pick, no better and certainly no worse.  That "system" would require quite a bit of luck in conjunction with the system portion - still, nonetheless a system.

          Please note, I did not say that it was better than a system designed for one jackpot.  Given the two choices you outlined, both guaranteed to perform as stated, the obvious choice is a jackpot.  But you have to deliver that hit!

          What I am saying is, as in medicine, if you discover bacteria xxx and say it causes some disease - if the center for disease control cannot duplicate your findings.  If others cannot duplicate your findings - they are declared wrong/discredited etc;  So if you claim a winning system it has to be mechanical (that is to say, follow a set order of rules) and produce results you claim for anyone using it.   

          As many on here posts "systems" (tic-tac-toe ad infinitum) they often leave out personal judgement - that is an item that cannot be repeated by others.  Therefore what they post is not a true system.  It is rather a methodology.

          "Please note, I did not say that it was better than a system designed for one jackpot.  Given the two choices you outlined, both guaranteed to perform as stated, the obvious choice is a jackpot.  But you have to deliver that hit!"

          That I agree with!

          "Yes, your 2 if 5 wheel is a system."

          Now we can decide what distinguishes a 2 if 5 of 56 number MM wheel with 46 combinations using all 46 bonus balls from buying 46 QPs. We know for a fact the wheel will match the bonus number but according to the odds charts someone suggested, a QP player would have to buy 75 QPs before they could expect to match the bonus number. This doesn't mean they can't match the bonus number by playing only 46 QPs or even impossible for 46 QPs to have all the bonus numbers. It just means to get the best chance of matching all 46 bonus number, a QP player needs 75 tickets.

          While not a huge difference, there still is a difference.

            RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

            United States
            Member #59354
            March 13, 2008
            3971 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 29, 2011, 4:26 pm - IP Logged

            Jimmy

            Certainty I will address this question in a manner that is calm and cool.  The first parameters would be centered

            on what would be most likely to happen based on the matrix alone.  The first thing I do when starting a new game

            is run a custom program that builds a master list for every tool in the box.  It calculates every piece of data that is

            used by my software covering every set in the matrix, I call this list the Matrix Bible.   From this list I know what

            and how often each value is expected to show on average. 

            RL


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 29, 2011, 5:30 pm - IP Logged

              RL....

              GREAT to see you back posting! Very interesting how you mention the similarities of this thread and discussions of God. Last night I had those same thoughts. It's so true!!! The entire mess(?) is a loop argument that goes up and down like the windows on the bus.

              There is no.....(fill in the blank)

              There is a........

              No, there isn't or I'd find....

              Have you looked everywhere?

              I don't have too. I only need a small sampling to say for a fact there is no.....

              And the wheels go round and round.

              It's like Mok and Rok watching Krok rub sticks together.

              Mok: What he doing?

              Rok: Don't know. Say he make fire.

              Mok: What fire?

              Rok: Don't know. He idiot. LOL

              Krok jumps up screaming, consumed in flames.

              Mok: What he doing with strange orange stuff?

              Rok: Don't know. Must be fire. LOL He idiot.

              Mok: LOL Bet he no do again. Idiot.

              The way I see all these 'sustainability' arguments are pie in the sky requirements for what is achievable. That thinking is throw out all probability and stats, give me a program that produces the winning combination for any game I choose, any night I choose to play. That's all they care to see. 

              But, as you have seen, when a system come along that exceeds even the minimum standards of probability, they can't accept it.

              So how can it be a person who wants a system that helps them win, when presented with a system that is a VAST improvement over what they currently have, be so against that new system?

              As I see it, throughout this thread, the discussion hasn't centered on saying no system works. As I read back through it, there are those who say, "There is not a system that works to my expectations."

              And the other side saying, "It meets my expectations, so it works."

              And then the Loop starts.....wrong....right....wrong....right...ad infinitum. Sounds like Coke...Pepsi...Coke...Pepsi....Coke....Pepsi.....

              NOBODY has a RIGHT to DEMAND PROOF on PERSONAL PREFERENCE. It seems most often when they do, they go in with the idea they can find something wrong, or something lacking, or some flaw that they use to discredit it. Look at Jimmy's claim that he improved RickG's system and then derided RickG's winning percentage.

              There is a point, RL, where you have to say, "Good Luck finding something to meet your expectations" when people's expectations are way beyond reasonable.

              These people who want the perfect system would give up in little time and without much effort, if told, "Do it yourself." No doubt, some already have based on the many posts that say, "If it were possible, it would have already been done" or the "If I can't do it, nobody can."

              You're ideas and your system is by far the one that impresses me most with regard to the larger jackpot games. It would seem anything that puts a jackpot within one's reach would be lauded.

              I can't wrap my mind around people who want something, and when given something, refuse to see it is better than what they have.

              It is good to see you back! Right now I need to get back to work and run some new tables to see where that leads.

              Big Smile

              garyo1954,

              Apparently you were afraid too many people might read my tough question for RL-RANDOMLOGIC prompting you to try to bury it the moment you saw it.  That's acceptable here, but I don't think lies are.

              You said, "Look at Jimmy's claim that he improved RickG's system and then derided RickG's winning percentage."

              You know very well I did not try to improve RickG's system, nor did I deride his winning percentage.

              These are two BLATANT lies!

              Now, what does that make you?

              --Jimmy4164

              P.S.  BTW, RL-RANDOMLOGIC came nowhere near answering the question above, and he knows it!

              Here it is again:

              RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

              Since you have stated on many occasions that you are not guilty of the Gambler's Fallacy, I was surprised that your 14 points above didn't include a rule forcing you to deal only with the configuation of the matrix, never looking back.  But then I noticed that you said, "I believe that if you are picking numbers soley based only what was drawn in past you are wasting your time."  Could it be that your qualification with the word "soley" is what prohibits you from making this your point #15?

              I have a simple question for you motivated by the puzzlement I experience each time I see you make references to your need to make frequent adjustments to your program parameters:

              What methods would you employ to set your program parameters if you were tasked with selecting a set of bets in a (5,39) Lotto game for the OPENING DAY DRAW in a state that previously did not have such a game?  For discussion purposes, let's assume it's a mechanical ball drop drawing system.

              I really hope you can approach this question calmly and briefly.  I am not asking you to reveal specifics of your filtering techniques.  All I am looking for is a concise explanation of how your system works without looking back.

              --Jimmy4164

                ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                Denver, Co
                United States
                Member #103046
                December 29, 2010
                546 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 29, 2011, 6:36 pm - IP Logged

                Jimmy

                Certainty I will address this question in a manner that is calm and cool.  The first parameters would be centered

                on what would be most likely to happen based on the matrix alone.  The first thing I do when starting a new game

                is run a custom program that builds a master list for every tool in the box.  It calculates every piece of data that is

                used by my software covering every set in the matrix, I call this list the Matrix Bible.   From this list I know what

                and how often each value is expected to show on average. 

                RL

                Speaking of systems (or methodologies or whatever we decide to call them), I've been enjoying your 'digit system' thread from last year:  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/214856

                I hope one day you'll create another discussion on it, I have some questions. Nevertheless, thanks and good luck.

                  garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                  Dallas, Texas
                  United States
                  Member #4549
                  May 2, 2004
                  1691 Posts
                  Online
                  Posted: March 29, 2011, 6:45 pm - IP Logged

                  garyo1954,

                  Apparently you were afraid too many people might read my tough question for RL-RANDOMLOGIC prompting you to try to bury it the moment you saw it.  That's acceptable here, but I don't think lies are.

                  You said, "Look at Jimmy's claim that he improved RickG's system and then derided RickG's winning percentage."

                  You know very well I did not try to improve RickG's system, nor did I deride his winning percentage.

                  These are two BLATANT lies!

                  Now, what does that make you?

                  --Jimmy4164

                  P.S.  BTW, RL-RANDOMLOGIC came nowhere near answering the question above, and he knows it!

                  Here it is again:

                  RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

                  Since you have stated on many occasions that you are not guilty of the Gambler's Fallacy, I was surprised that your 14 points above didn't include a rule forcing you to deal only with the configuation of the matrix, never looking back.  But then I noticed that you said, "I believe that if you are picking numbers soley based only what was drawn in past you are wasting your time."  Could it be that your qualification with the word "soley" is what prohibits you from making this your point #15?

                  I have a simple question for you motivated by the puzzlement I experience each time I see you make references to your need to make frequent adjustments to your program parameters:

                  What methods would you employ to set your program parameters if you were tasked with selecting a set of bets in a (5,39) Lotto game for the OPENING DAY DRAW in a state that previously did not have such a game?  For discussion purposes, let's assume it's a mechanical ball drop drawing system.

                  I really hope you can approach this question calmly and briefly.  I am not asking you to reveal specifics of your filtering techniques.  All I am looking for is a concise explanation of how your system works without looking back.

                  --Jimmy4164

                  Jimboo-boo!!!!!!!

                  Why did this idea arise on page 7 of the "What does it take" thread? It certainly wasn't me who originated the idea, but if I am in error it seems you perpetrated the possibility claiming that you pointed out something wrong in RickG's system and in fact, he thanked you for doing so. 

                  If I am wrong, I certainly apologize. Now, you may be the victim of third party who perpetrated this idea, but it wasn't me. And you may share the blame. This misunderstanding would not have occurred had you been forthright and said, "Yes, I backtested RickG's system and he thanked me for it."

                  No Jimboo, I will not click your links. Been there. Done that. Half are worthless. The other half are worthlesser. Links are not discussion.

                  I will accept your word that I was WRONG. And I do apologize. Good enough?

                  Now.....

                  RL answered your post. With no history the entire matrix is the only thing you have to rely upon.

                  Certainly you could use several other 5/39 games to get some idea of how they were breaking, but in the sense of your question; specifically, you have no data, would that be a suitable answer? That would be for the user to decide.

                  My wise ancestor used to say: NEVER RUB STICKS TOGETHER IN A HOUSE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE LEAVES IN THEIR HAIR.

                  PS I don't mind so much you calling me liar as the paranoia you show in thinking ANYONE would try to bury your post. That is beyond silly.

                  PPS I don't follow you around the board. You're just not that important.

                  PPPS No that's not me in with binoculars looking in your window!

                  PPPPS Quit picking your nose!

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   


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

                    Jimmy

                    Certainty I will address this question in a manner that is calm and cool.  The first parameters would be centered

                    on what would be most likely to happen based on the matrix alone.  The first thing I do when starting a new game

                    is run a custom program that builds a master list for every tool in the box.  It calculates every piece of data that is

                    used by my software covering every set in the matrix, I call this list the Matrix Bible.   From this list I know what

                    and how often each value is expected to show on average. 

                    RL

                    Well, I see it is going to require the proverbial pulling of teeth to get you to comment on the issue of whether or not you are looking at prior draws while making your selection decisions.  You have made enough comments to convince me that you are, but I'm afraid not all will be convinced.  You have made a major point of this, insisting, sometimes screaming (metaphorically) that you DO NOT use past draws to predict future ones.  You have a vested interest in denying that you do, because you know there are countless books and articles that compellingly debunk this idea, usually referred to as the Gambler's Fallacy.

                    So, what's next?  If you really want to convince everyone that your system is "outside the box" and does NOT rely on past draws, here's your next opportunity to do that:

                    Once you have run your initial custom program before the first draw of a new game, what criteria do you use to set your program parameters so you can generate your first set of bets for that premier drawing?

                      visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
                      light on my feet
                      United States
                      Member #356
                      May 20, 2002
                      2744 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 29, 2011, 10:57 pm - IP Logged

                      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

                      RL,  while i do appreciate the effort and extent you went to in your  attempt at legitimizing your personal pursuit of the lottery,  it's still a claimed hypothesis,  and nothing more. 

                      while you laid out it's partial methodology,  the fact still remains,  when it gets down to it's reall life application (putting your own money on it),   "it" ....(like any other "system") .....can not produce a consistent sustainable repeatability where you can truthfully claim you can actually create an edge via your efforts.

                      you,  nor anyone else can actually demonstrate the ability to predict/alter/manipulate a random event

                      the following "reminder" is not for your benefit,  because you obviously discard this small piece of reality,  but it is for the reading audience,  and it goes like this.

                      (1) lottery balls have no memory.  they don't know which one is due,  which one is shy,  which one has been on vacation for months,  they have no idea who has been penciling them in because they like "that number",  they have no idea when a computer program has been "fine tuned" to favor them......lottery balls have zero memory, and each one has the same chance to come up every draw.   it is incongruent with logical thinking that even though they haven't made an appearance in a very long time,  that somehow they are "due".  that's rediculous,  considering at each draw each ball has the same chance period.

                      (2)  even if someone could detect a pattern via the usage of the same ballsets,  you nor anyone else knows which ballsets or machines they are using for that draw,  because they switch them around while denying public knowledge, thereby negating any pattern.

                      (3)  no one experiences continuity of success,  as claimed "success" is always represented in a sliding scale form "painted" by the claimed "successor".  proponents of lottery "systems" who claim they have something are in a constant state of flux, forever searching and tweaking.  why is that,  if it "works".   these facts portend excuse,  not success.

                      success is sustained and demonstrated again thru the one and only qualifying factor.....repeatability

                      without repeatability,  you have wishful thinking. 

                      (4)  tons of hyperbole,  on the back of high falutin hypothesis,  sans hard evidence.  "i can i can i can i can,  and here's how i do it"....."what,  you want me to show you that it works?  noooo, i can't do that"    followed by the excuse...."hey,  it's my system and my hard work,  get your own"

                      .......which is lame,  because people like don't care "how it works", only that it does...   

                       9 years at LP,  and still not one who actually demonstrates they can when pressed to do so.  that is a fact

                      (5)  this is a hard fact of life,  and one reminder guys like you are not going to like,  but it's necessary to prove my point that it's just random......that even if anyone could,  the lotteries would change it up and negate your hard work toot suite,  forcing your wishful thinking back to square one,  where you are going to have to expend even more time and effort into something that would eventually happen again, ad infirediculoustimedraininginitum 

                      you want the hard truth (wishful thinkers ignore hard truth,  but here goes)......there will never come a time in future history where anyone will exploit the lottery for manipulative gain.  the hard truth is,  the lotteries wouldn't allow it if it were possible,  and would immediately send it back to impossible land.

                      you cannot reason with a person who doesn't accept that common sense fact of life. 

                      any "pursuit" now certainly has no future, because the future will always be manipulated so you can't  anyways.

                      now,  does that mean we shouldn't pursue something in life based on eventual roadblocks?  heck no.  you charge ahead,  when there is a goal that is attainable

                       the lottery is a random event everytime it happens,  because past history doesn't count,  anymore than the impossibility of future predictability, anyomre than the certainity the lotteries won't allow it.

                      do you have to buy only 1QP?    no no and no times PI. 

                       but you waste time thinking you can manipulate a designed random event designed enough to be impossible to exploit

                      crazy that after all these years at LP that it never occured to me that the lottery can ruin wishful thinking with one small tweak of the matrix,  negating completely all your previous efforts,  only to sit and wait until they tweak it again.

                      therein lay the reasoning why i preach the gospel of common sense.

                      it is amazing where a man or woman can take themselves,  so long as it's not on the bullet train of desperation

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

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

                               until further notice,  it's  france everyday

                        Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
                        Indiana
                        United States
                        Member #48725
                        January 7, 2007
                        1953 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 29, 2011, 11:15 pm - IP Logged

                        RL,  while i do appreciate the effort and extent you went to in your  attempt at legitimizing your personal pursuit of the lottery,  it's still a claimed hypothesis,  and nothing more. 

                        while you laid out it's partial methodology,  the fact still remains,  when it gets down to it's reall life application (putting your own money on it),   "it" ....(like any other "system") .....can not produce a consistent sustainable repeatability where you can truthfully claim you can actually create an edge via your efforts.

                        you,  nor anyone else can actually demonstrate the ability to predict/alter/manipulate a random event

                        the following "reminder" is not for your benefit,  because you obviously discard this small piece of reality,  but it is for the reading audience,  and it goes like this.

                        (1) lottery balls have no memory.  they don't know which one is due,  which one is shy,  which one has been on vacation for months,  they have no idea who has been penciling them in because they like "that number",  they have no idea when a computer program has been "fine tuned" to favor them......lottery balls have zero memory, and each one has the same chance to come up every draw.   it is incongruent with logical thinking that even though they haven't made an appearance in a very long time,  that somehow they are "due".  that's rediculous,  considering at each draw each ball has the same chance period.

                        (2)  even if someone could detect a pattern via the usage of the same ballsets,  you nor anyone else knows which ballsets or machines they are using for that draw,  because they switch them around while denying public knowledge, thereby negating any pattern.

                        (3)  no one experiences continuity of success,  as claimed "success" is always represented in a sliding scale form "painted" by the claimed "successor".  proponents of lottery "systems" who claim they have something are in a constant state of flux, forever searching and tweaking.  why is that,  if it "works".   these facts portend excuse,  not success.

                        success is sustained and demonstrated again thru the one and only qualifying factor.....repeatability

                        without repeatability,  you have wishful thinking. 

                        (4)  tons of hyperbole,  on the back of high falutin hypothesis,  sans hard evidence.  "i can i can i can i can,  and here's how i do it"....."what,  you want me to show you that it works?  noooo, i can't do that"    followed by the excuse...."hey,  it's my system and my hard work,  get your own"

                        .......which is lame,  because people like don't care "how it works", only that it does...   

                         9 years at LP,  and still not one who actually demonstrates they can when pressed to do so.  that is a fact

                        (5)  this is a hard fact of life,  and one reminder guys like you are not going to like,  but it's necessary to prove my point that it's just random......that even if anyone could,  the lotteries would change it up and negate your hard work toot suite,  forcing your wishful thinking back to square one,  where you are going to have to expend even more time and effort into something that would eventually happen again, ad infirediculoustimedraininginitum 

                        you want the hard truth (wishful thinkers ignore hard truth,  but here goes)......there will never come a time in future history where anyone will exploit the lottery for manipulative gain.  the hard truth is,  the lotteries wouldn't allow it if it were possible,  and would immediately send it back to impossible land.

                        you cannot reason with a person who doesn't accept that common sense fact of life. 

                        any "pursuit" now certainly has no future, because the future will always be manipulated so you can't  anyways.

                        now,  does that mean we shouldn't pursue something in life based on eventual roadblocks?  heck no.  you charge ahead,  when there is a goal that is attainable

                         the lottery is a random event everytime it happens,  because past history doesn't count,  anymore than the impossibility of future predictability, anyomre than the certainity the lotteries won't allow it.

                        do you have to buy only 1QP?    no no and no times PI. 

                         but you waste time thinking you can manipulate a designed random event designed enough to be impossible to exploit

                        crazy that after all these years at LP that it never occured to me that the lottery can ruin wishful thinking with one small tweak of the matrix,  negating completely all your previous efforts,  only to sit and wait until they tweak it again.

                        therein lay the reasoning why i preach the gospel of common sense.

                        it is amazing where a man or woman can take themselves,  so long as it's not on the bullet train of desperation

                        "success is sustained and demonstrated again thru the one and only qualifying factor.....repeatability"


                        If someone won a jackpot large enough for them to retire, they probably wouldn't care about whether or not their system could hit again. Repeatability doesn't matter when it comes to the big jackpot games. Win once, and be done if that's what you so choose. That's the difference between the small games and the Pick 6, Powerball, and Mega Millions. I could see people wanting their system to be repeatable if they're playing Pick 3, Pick 4, and Pick 5. We're not talking "set for life" amounts when playing those types of games. They were successful, and they only needed to do it once.

                        Gonna win.Big Smile

                          ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                          Denver, Co
                          United States
                          Member #103046
                          December 29, 2010
                          546 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 29, 2011, 11:33 pm - IP Logged

                          "success is sustained and demonstrated again thru the one and only qualifying factor.....repeatability"


                          If someone won a jackpot large enough for them to retire, they probably wouldn't care about whether or not their system could hit again. Repeatability doesn't matter when it comes to the big jackpot games. Win once, and be done if that's what you so choose. That's the difference between the small games and the Pick 6, Powerball, and Mega Millions. I could see people wanting their system to be repeatable if they're playing Pick 3, Pick 4, and Pick 5. We're not talking "set for life" amounts when playing those types of games. They were successful, and they only needed to do it once.

                          Actually, even in the PB, MM and Pick 6 games, I would like a system that is consistently repeatable so I can at least win back some of the money I am spending while traveling down the road toward the JP. If a system truly works, then it should regularly and consistently be hitting 4/6 and 5/6, or 3/5 and 4/5.

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7310 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 29, 2011, 11:52 pm - IP Logged

                            "Why would it be necessary for a method of play to win at least two multi-million dollar jackpots to prove it is a system or a success?"

                            That isn't what he said.  You could potentially wait a VERY VERY LONG TIME waiting to hit 2 Powerball Jackpots!  Remember, the claims that have been made repeatedly here are that systems exist that can turn a profit WITHOUT the benefit of a Jackpot.  There is even one system purported to win secondary prizes at a rate eleven (11) times what chance predicts!  What you CAN do to decide whether you've got a winning system or not is to see how well it does when compared to what's expected from winning secondary prizes.  Since PB and MM are under discussion here, why not look at what's expected in the PB by looking at the calculations at the end of the summary pointed to by this link.  I know you believe such stats are "useless," but maybe when you see that they can help you out in this case, you might rethink your belief.

                            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222395/1899924

                            Hint:  To break even in the Powerball, without a Jackpot, you must (see the table) win secondary prizes at a rate ( 1.0 / 0.174 ) or approximately 5.75 times BETTER than QuickPick players do!

                            Can you do that?

                            "To break even in the Powerball, without a Jackpot, you must (see the table) win secondary prizes at a rate ( 1.0 / 0.174 ) or approximately 5.75 times BETTER than QuickPick players do!  Can you do that?"

                            Before I can answer, tell me how many QPs do you buy that guarantees you breaking even?

                              garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                              Dallas, Texas
                              United States
                              Member #4549
                              May 2, 2004
                              1691 Posts
                              Online
                              Posted: March 30, 2011, 12:21 am - IP Logged

                              Well, I see it is going to require the proverbial pulling of teeth to get you to comment on the issue of whether or not you are looking at prior draws while making your selection decisions.  You have made enough comments to convince me that you are, but I'm afraid not all will be convinced.  You have made a major point of this, insisting, sometimes screaming (metaphorically) that you DO NOT use past draws to predict future ones.  You have a vested interest in denying that you do, because you know there are countless books and articles that compellingly debunk this idea, usually referred to as the Gambler's Fallacy.

                              So, what's next?  If you really want to convince everyone that your system is "outside the box" and does NOT rely on past draws, here's your next opportunity to do that:

                              Once you have run your initial custom program before the first draw of a new game, what criteria do you use to set your program parameters so you can generate your first set of bets for that premier drawing?

                              Jimboo-booo!!!!!!

                              You are a victim of your own construction!

                              Since the only data you have is the entire matrix, you would use the base filters that best fit the matrix. 

                              Before you start with the "there are none....."

                              Remember about three months ago I started a thread showing the baseline structure of 5/39 games? Had you not been so quick to trash that idea, you would have learned quite a few things you didn't already know.

                              No, Jimboo-boo all combinations in the matrix are not created equal!

                              Having gone through RL's 47 page thread several times, (yes, that one you also trashed), and worked through many of the same ideas.

                              You don't have to have single piece of historical data to make future predictions within the constraints you outlined. 

                              So, what is the purpose of badgering and harassing him to answer?

                                 
                                Page 11 of 62