- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 12:24 pm
You last visited
May 7, 2024, 3:17 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?Prev TopicNext Topic
-
Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Mar 31, 2011
Guru101, did you not notice the stalemate?
"...who cares how many QPs lose.....," a one word change renders it, "...who cares how many SPs lose..."
Seems to me the QPers do. QPers will when they realize they have twice the odds of losing with a QP."
But thatfact would only bring out more common sense.
Maybe a new T-Sirt for the collection:
Front says: "I lose twice as often with Quicks Picks....."
Back says: "...but it don't matter!!!!"
your not very good at math, garyo
the "math" states you guys lose 70% of the time.
that's pretty pathetic, seeing how the only effort the 70 percenters put toward the lottery is handing the clerk a dollar bill or three, while you guys expend thousands of hours.
btw, how much time and effort did you throw at the last mega millions king JP?
because those "losers" walked away with the JP.... with a QP
i dunno, since now you turned the conversation around and made it about "losing percentage", maybe you can take it upon yourself to explain on behalf of all the systems players why you can't "lessen" your losing percentage from 30% to maybe even a paltry 40%
you don't even wanna know what your "t-shirt" would read in a the real world, the one beyond wishful thinking land.
move the percentage up to 35%......then you can brag
"i am .........."meant to"
P.S., that RJoH is a stand up guy. thanks, vision
until further notice, it's france everyday
-
Quote: Originally posted by visiondude on Mar 31, 2011
your not very good at math, garyo
the "math" states you guys lose 70% of the time.
that's pretty pathetic, seeing how the only effort the 70 percenters put toward the lottery is handing the clerk a dollar bill or three, while you guys expend thousands of hours.
btw, how much time and effort did you throw at the last mega millions king JP?
because those "losers" walked away with the JP.... with a QP
i dunno, since now you turned the conversation around and made it about "losing percentage", maybe you can take it upon yourself to explain on behalf of all the systems players why you can't "lessen" your losing percentage from 30% to maybe even a paltry 40%
you don't even wanna know what your "t-shirt" would read in a the real world, the one beyond wishful thinking land.
move the percentage up to 35%......then you can brag
"the "math" states you guys lose 70% of the time."
"If people can't understand why 70% to 80% of PB jackpot winners are QPs when 70% to 80% of the ticket purchases are QPs, they shouldn't be in the Mathematics Forum."
I rest my case.
-
I think the recent back and forth in this Topic can be summed up this way:
RL-RANDOMLOGIC claims to have devised a methodology that allows him to stay in the black betting in a (5,39) Lotto game WITHOUT winning a 5/5 Jackpot.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC can not prove that his claim is true, so he falls back on several excuses that basically boil down to the claim that revealing his complete methodology would not be in his best interests. Now that doesn't mean he's setting the stage for a marketing effort for his program. No way! He's emphatic that he has no intention of EVER selling that thingy.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC laughably challenges VISIONDUDE to prove that his methodology does NOT work when he hasn't provided sufficient information for anyone to prove that it DOES work.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC has finally admitted that he DOES, in fact, use past draw history to make his betting decisions, but claims immunity from the Gambler's Fallacy! Uh huh...
Jimmy4164 has been trying to help people be aware that there are TWO large drums (RL-RANDOMLOGIC's metaphor) to be considered in a (5,39) Lotto game. They both start out with 575757 objects representing all the possible draws. RL-RANDOMLOGIC discards Hundreds of Thousands of these objects from his drum before he applies the [undisclosed] final procedure of his methodology to select his 8-15 lines to bet on. He throws away sets that have too few or too many unique digits, just one of many types of sets he views as low "quality." HOWEVER, the drum from which the state draws the winning object has NONE of the 575757 objects removed before it churns and mixes them, finally picking the winner at random. Close your eyes and think about that!
@Stack47: QuickPicks are generated with more than adequate Random Number Generators, so your claim they can't be backtested is illogical and bogus, to say the least.
P.S. The Taxman is not far from our doors; are you ready for him?
--Jimmy4164
-
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Apr 1, 2011
"the "math" states you guys lose 70% of the time."
"If people can't understand why 70% to 80% of PB jackpot winners are QPs when 70% to 80% of the ticket purchases are QPs, they shouldn't be in the Mathematics Forum."
I rest my case.
well that one flew over stacks head free willy style.
since now we are playing the "i rest my case" game, you can see "intelligence" doesn't always play catch up to common sense.
figure out new ways to amalgamate the washing machine process stack, the facts are "you guys" can't close the 70/30 gap at all.
pretty pathetic dontcha think? ..... despite the countless hours you attempt it, and the countless air high fives you give each after you don't, day after day after day.
the joke is on you.
turn it around, lets say it was 70% SP's, and 30% QP's that were purchased.
you guys still can't change that 70/30 standard.
the fact that you can't change the standard at all is a solid indicator "you can't" to begin with.
manipulation is the ability TO move a standard, and not one of you guys can on a repeated ongoing basis.
the part of this equation you are purposefully ignoring, is that if systems worked, it wouldn't matter how many were "played".
what would matter is what WAS played, vs what was profitable because OF the modality.
hence, in that equation, because "you guys" can never move that bar closer to a 50/50 showing, you got bupkiss.
afterall, "systems" are the better method that can be used to extract more profit from the lottery, whereas QP's are for dummies.....(according to systems players claims)...
do i have that right?
of course i do.
here is another ahhhh hummm moment.
if there was a lottery system out there that was profitable, there would eventually be a ton of people profiting from it eventually.
if it's righteous, it can be repeated, and once it can be repeated, it can be repeated by everyone that uses it, so long as they follow the same tactic, that the originator had success with it.
successful formulas are successful to each successor, when they are replicated the same way
the fact that this has never happened, is but another indicator it's a bogus claim.
don't give us that lame excuse "once the lotteries find out, they will change the matrix and screw us up. we HAVE to be secretive".
that's an excuse.
given time, it's just a larger number field, it could be done again
there are actually people in this world who aren't selfish dweebs, who when they become succcessful, they share knowledge.
certainly in a parimutual game you guys can't use that lame excuse.
because you only see a few claimed "hits" at LP, and not a lightning bolt thru the lottery community, that's another "ahhhh hummm" moment.
never been one solid lightning bolt.
the truth......there are THOUSANDS of systems thrown at the lottery everyday here just at LP alone.
and another "ahhhh hummm", the people who are supposedly the best at it are constantly tweaking it.
you don't ever have to "tweak" success. you just keep riding the same wave
since we are in a mathematics forum, a little more "addition"... no single successful person at LP that can demonstrate sustained continuity of repeatability over time, and certainly there has never been an "ahhh hummm" moment in all of LP's history.
seen alot of "dude, i stumbled onto something. it gave me a hit yesterday. this is it"......followed by unsustainability
seen literally thousands of "those conversations"
still waiting for the "ahhh hummm" lightning bolt moment, where i can hang up my "i told you can't manufacture a better outcome thru self effort beyond luck, fate".....hat
i wonder how much personal time i will get back for myself, from protecting people from desperation/wishful thinking land?
that would be nice
"i am .........."meant to"
P.S., that RJoH is a stand up guy. thanks, vision
until further notice, it's france everyday
-
gee wizz, the ahhhhh hummm moments are coming at a record pace tonight.
another common sense reminder .... it's a fact, that systems players can't even threaten the pick 3 games with enough "suspicion" to rile the lottery commisions into building road blocks into the game so you cannot exploit it.
that's just the 3 number games.
when was the last time you heard groans and rumblings from within any state lottery about it's players extracting too many profits from the pick 3, and they need to do something about it?
you haven't, because still no one can.
that's just pick 3, the "easiest game".
i dunno, i never heard of them making the pick 3 "harder", because they thought someone was getting the better of them via their "skill"
you think they lay awake at night worrying about you guys "threatening" to bank profits over efforts in any game above pick 3?
lottery officials sleep like baby's at night, knowing there isn't one person out there that can beat their design.
one thing they won't do is publically admit they secretly laugh at your thinking you can.
they depend upon your 30%
they soothe their conscience with that disclaimer "please, if you must gamble, gamble wisely". (snicker - snicker)
one conversation you will never hear.....is a lottery commissioner telling an ardent system player to play 1QP.
anyone that can't read between the lines as to the "why" of the why that will never happen, it's only because they have sold their soul to the "god" of wishful thunkin
that's the one part of the lottery i disdain. the desperation quotient
turns reasonable intelligent right thinking common sense considering people into mush
you know what common sense buys me in this threads taa doo? the knowledge that the lottery designers and commissioners don't make fun of a guy like me, when they are at one of their "meetings".
nope. they are concocting up more ways to seperate you from your wishful thinking, all the while astonished on how easy thier job is.
that is the difference between "fun" and reasonable effort, and wishful thinking.
i think lottery officials go out and buy a new temporpedic bed with their first bonus check
"i am .........."meant to"
P.S., that RJoH is a stand up guy. thanks, vision
until further notice, it's france everyday
-
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 1, 2011
I think the recent back and forth in this Topic can be summed up this way:
RL-RANDOMLOGIC claims to have devised a methodology that allows him to stay in the black betting in a (5,39) Lotto game WITHOUT winning a 5/5 Jackpot.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC can not prove that his claim is true, so he falls back on several excuses that basically boil down to the claim that revealing his complete methodology would not be in his best interests. Now that doesn't mean he's setting the stage for a marketing effort for his program. No way! He's emphatic that he has no intention of EVER selling that thingy.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC laughably challenges VISIONDUDE to prove that his methodology does NOT work when he hasn't provided sufficient information for anyone to prove that it DOES work.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC has finally admitted that he DOES, in fact, use past draw history to make his betting decisions, but claims immunity from the Gambler's Fallacy! Uh huh...
Jimmy4164 has been trying to help people be aware that there are TWO large drums (RL-RANDOMLOGIC's metaphor) to be considered in a (5,39) Lotto game. They both start out with 575757 objects representing all the possible draws. RL-RANDOMLOGIC discards Hundreds of Thousands of these objects from his drum before he applies the [undisclosed] final procedure of his methodology to select his 8-15 lines to bet on. He throws away sets that have too few or too many unique digits, just one of many types of sets he views as low "quality." HOWEVER, the drum from which the state draws the winning object has NONE of the 575757 objects removed before it churns and mixes them, finally picking the winner at random. Close your eyes and think about that!
@Stack47: QuickPicks are generated with more than adequate Random Number Generators, so your claim they can't be backtested is illogical and bogus, to say the least.
P.S. The Taxman is not far from our doors; are you ready for him?
--Jimmy4164
Jim, jim, jim.
#1, I have a system and it matches all my claimes.
#2 I have proved my claims to many, sorry your not in the loop
#3 What you call a laughable challenge to visionless dude has nothing to do with the lottery, This was just a
test to confirm what I already knew, just wanted to be sure.
#5 RL has not admitted any fallacy but I have proven vision just like you does not know what he/she thinks he/she
knows so well.
#6 Jimmy has not been trying to help anyone...... Anyone interested in the sidestep queens taticits should read
the LP news thread Missouri Senate to discuss privatizing state lottery.
#7 Jimmy still thinks that balls bouncing around inside a hopper will somehow produce a new set of numbers that
did not exist before the drawing. I can find all those same numbers in the matrix without fail. The numbers
bouncing around are nothing more then a method used to try and prove the draw is not fixed. Some of the
more advanced states use a RNG and while I guess most people in Missouri know what I am saying is true
because we use a modern day RNG vs the aincent tumbler that was in use around the same time as those
who believed the world was flat.
#8 All of my claims of winning are from past attempts while playing in the past. I started making scans of my
tickets that I played to show proof of what I could do back before my system post was closed down. I got
a PM from a member which will go unnamed asking me not to post those ticket scans and I thought why
would the leading critic of my system ask me not to post the proof of my claims in a PM while at the same
time continue to tash my system? Hmmmmmm.
#9 Yes Stack, close your eves to what is going on then you will maybe be able to see things the same way as
jimmy. I wonder if this is some sort of hypnosis plan used to control your mind, Oh nooooooo. Quick stack
open them eyes back up, Stack, STACK, wake up stack, Whew! that was close. Could of had another sombie
after me.
#10. Ever wonder why jimmy does not answer or try to reply to the main topics of post but has to pick on typing
errors or some other meaningless part of a post that I think that most just read over. Also notice how he
uses large fonts and color codes them so that they stick out. All this is an attempt to focus attention away
from the hard questions he cannot answer or for some reason chooses not to. Hmmmmm again.
#11.Jimmy like to throw up some worthless point trying to incite anger so he can lead the post in the direction
he wants it to go.
#12 No amount of evidence will ever suffice a person who is not willing to change what they think. He many times
ignores what the real digit system is and goes about ranting his twisted verson of what it is. You see the
digit system is nothing more then selecting digits to play as a method to reduce the field. He has never once
addressed this staying on topic. I ask again jimmy what are the odds of selecting the correct digits meaning
if I select 5 out of 10 or 6 out of 10 when using digits 1-2-3 to begin with. Not interested in any other long
winded math statement except the odds for doing this. Never ever has he answered this question which is
what the digits system is. Choose the correct digits and the winning set can be built from these digits. From
this point on it is a matter of filtering to reduce sets to a amount that fits my budget. He can't do the math
that is needed to do this and is a very good pointer for those interested.
#13 This is why he continues to bash what I say trying to lead people away from his inabilities. I could be wrong
but I don't think so. .
#14 I say that the sets generated follow in population the sets in the matrix.
Matrix percents are rounded
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 199500 PER = 35
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 229473 PER = 40
Actual drawings (750)
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 271 PER = 36 +1
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 277 PER = 36 - 4Actual drawings (100)
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 33 PER = 33 - 1
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 41 PER = 41 +1Actual drawings (60)
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 20 PER = 34 - 1
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 22 PER = 38 - 2I time my play to the days that I think digit totals will be 5 or 6 but do not limit myself to these days only
If I feel the data supports playing another value I might try to hit that also. Since I play conditional odds
based on the assumption that I have predicted the number of digits that will appear in the next set this
leaves me with picking so many of the 10 digits to put into play. If 75 percent of the sets in the matrix
have 5 or 6 total digits then I believe that 75% of the draws will also have 5 or 6 digits. Only 25% of
actual drawings will fall in the less then 5 or more then 6 digit range. If as I have found from my own
observations that QP's don't follow this rule of having the correct population of digits vs the matrix then
this would mean that a QP is not quite as good as many think and explains why so many tickets are
needed before a JP is won. If your QP falls into the 25% crowd and if the draws follow the matrix in
population then you only have a 25% vs a 75% chance of being in the winning end of the pool. I in
no way say that the winning ticket will not came from the 25% end of the pool but I do say that only
25% of the draws will. This is why I pick my own numbers using digits and don't buy QP's. I don't
say that just because I pick my own numbers that I can somehow make the draw match my numbers
but i think anyone with a brain could see the points I make. My overall system of plays is designed to
take advantage of this and tries to trap the lower prizes in the process. Even a 2 of 5 wins even money
for my 5-39 and should be considered doing far better expected. If you think that what I have posted
will win a jackpot anytime you want to play then I think that you need a few remedial reading classes
and a good dictionary. Whil I do make mistakes I think that I have made my point very clear. Some will
now try to cover this post with a bunch of crap to get it moved off the main burnner and shoved out of
sight so they can continue trying to save face. I win much more often then I ever did picking numbers
or buying QP's and for this I have been the subject of attack by a few who seem to have no interest in
the truth.
RL
-
For those who think ping pong balls don't follow the same rules
Mega millions, which is a ball droper
matrix values (rounded)
DIGIT 2 = 60 PER = 0 AVG = 0 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 3 = 12364 PER = 0 AVG = 0 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 4 = 223952 PER = .06 AVG = 1 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 5 =1019880 PER = 27 AVG = 27 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 6 =1550676 PER = 41 AVG = 41 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 7 = 847860 PER = 22 AVG = 22 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 8 = 157200 PER = .04 AVG = 0 IN 100 DRAWSactual draws (582)
DIGIT 2 = 0 PER = 0 AVG = 0 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 3 = 1 PER = 0 AVG = 0 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 4 = 37 PER = .06 AVG = 1 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 5 = 169 PER = 29 AVG = 29 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 6 = 223 PER = 38 AVG = 38 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 7 = 120 PER = 21 AVG = 21 IN 100 DRAWS
DIGIT 8 = 25 PER = .04 AVG = 0 IN 100 DRAWSdid not include sets with 9 digits
RL
-
RL-RANDOMLOGIC,
I'm sorry if you feel besieged. If you could see that there is a difference between a "challenge" and an "attack," you might feel better about this situation. Perhaps you will learn something to help you improve your system, which you are apparently always trying to do. Beating the odds by a factor of 11 would be sufficient for me to hit the road and start cashing in, but I guess you want more. Regarding your last post, all I can do is quote MY last post. This is adapted from your very own "mind experiment" of a previous post. Remember? The analogy of a drum containing a small object for each possible set was a good idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to help you see that when you remove so many objects from YOUR drum and the state's drum remains full, you run the risk of "throwing the baby out with the bath water!"
Here's what I said early this morning:
"Jimmy4164 has been trying to help people be aware that there are TWO large drums (RL-RANDOMLOGIC's metaphor) to be considered in a (5,39) Lotto game. They both start out with 575757 objects representing all the possible draws. RL-RANDOMLOGIC discards Hundreds of Thousands of these objects from his drum before he applies the [undisclosed] final procedure of his methodology to select his 8-15 lines to bet on. He throws away sets that have too few or too many unique digits, just one of many types of sets he views as low "quality." HOWEVER, the drum from which the state draws the winning object has NONE of the 575757 objects removed before it churns and mixes them, finally picking the winner at random. Close your eyes and think about that!"
By the way, why does it annoy you when someone takes advantage of the powerful color and font features of the text editor here at LP?
--Jimmy4164
-
Jimmy, your drum analogy sounds good but it doesn't work.
Regardless of whether you use quickpicks or a system, you are discarding tickets from your drum. The only difference is HOW you discarded them.
As you say, RL dicards hundreds of thousands of those objects from HIS drums before applying his final procedure. So let's say he throws all those objects away and ends up with 100 that he is going to play.
Jimmy4164, on the other hand, goes out and buys 100 quickpicks. By doing so, he too has discarded hundreds of thousands of objects from HIS drum while "the drum from which the state draws the winning objects has NONE of the 575757 objects removed from it before it churns and mixes them, finally picking the winner at random."
You've did the very same thing RL did: discarded hundreds of tickets from your drum while the state will draw from a full drum.
The only difference is how each of you decided to throw away all those tickets. One did it systematically, the other randomly.
I just don't get why it bothers you so much that he doesn't use the same method that you use?
-
Jimmy
I could enjoy this sort of reply from you any day, It is exactly what I am looking for. I see your point
and agree. I feel that my many years of doing this has given me some insight as to which group is
most likely to show in the next draw. I do miss very often but when I do hit the return is very nice.
I cannot force the draw and must wait it out. I do play every day but only purchase tickets on certain
days I feel I have a good chance of hitting. This in no way ensures I will hit so I guess looking at it from
that angle it could be considered chance. It may just be chance but when I do make the correct selections
the payoffs are much bigger.
When I do hit I normally win a good amount. When I hit a 3 of 5 it is not just one but many and can and
often is as many as 4 or 5 with around 15 lines. The same thing applies to 4 of 5's. I have had days when I
have hit mor then 1 on 15 lines. I give credit for this to using digits. I don't think that we dissagree as much
as we might think. It could be that everything has not been considered. Many days all I hit is several 2 of 5
matches and lose a few bucks overall. However over the course of a year I have a few very good hits. If
I could as you say maintain a rate of 11X on any day I choose to play then I would be out there doing it every
day. I hit several 5 of 5's over the course of a year but the fact that I did not buy the tickets on those days
shows my timming needs more work. The large color fonts are a distraction and add nothing to my ability to
understand what you want to convey. I always try and put things in simple terms not wanting to make it hard
for anyone to understand but this often has drawbacks. I would very much like to move past the bickering and
move foward.
RL
-
Quote: Originally posted by visiondude on Apr 1, 2011
well that one flew over stacks head free willy style.
since now we are playing the "i rest my case" game, you can see "intelligence" doesn't always play catch up to common sense.
figure out new ways to amalgamate the washing machine process stack, the facts are "you guys" can't close the 70/30 gap at all.
pretty pathetic dontcha think? ..... despite the countless hours you attempt it, and the countless air high fives you give each after you don't, day after day after day.
the joke is on you.
turn it around, lets say it was 70% SP's, and 30% QP's that were purchased.
you guys still can't change that 70/30 standard.
the fact that you can't change the standard at all is a solid indicator "you can't" to begin with.
manipulation is the ability TO move a standard, and not one of you guys can on a repeated ongoing basis.
the part of this equation you are purposefully ignoring, is that if systems worked, it wouldn't matter how many were "played".
what would matter is what WAS played, vs what was profitable because OF the modality.
hence, in that equation, because "you guys" can never move that bar closer to a 50/50 showing, you got bupkiss.
afterall, "systems" are the better method that can be used to extract more profit from the lottery, whereas QP's are for dummies.....(according to systems players claims)...
do i have that right?
of course i do.
here is another ahhhh hummm moment.
if there was a lottery system out there that was profitable, there would eventually be a ton of people profiting from it eventually.
if it's righteous, it can be repeated, and once it can be repeated, it can be repeated by everyone that uses it, so long as they follow the same tactic, that the originator had success with it.
successful formulas are successful to each successor, when they are replicated the same way
the fact that this has never happened, is but another indicator it's a bogus claim.
don't give us that lame excuse "once the lotteries find out, they will change the matrix and screw us up. we HAVE to be secretive".
that's an excuse.
given time, it's just a larger number field, it could be done again
there are actually people in this world who aren't selfish dweebs, who when they become succcessful, they share knowledge.
certainly in a parimutual game you guys can't use that lame excuse.
because you only see a few claimed "hits" at LP, and not a lightning bolt thru the lottery community, that's another "ahhhh hummm" moment.
never been one solid lightning bolt.
the truth......there are THOUSANDS of systems thrown at the lottery everyday here just at LP alone.
and another "ahhhh hummm", the people who are supposedly the best at it are constantly tweaking it.
you don't ever have to "tweak" success. you just keep riding the same wave
since we are in a mathematics forum, a little more "addition"... no single successful person at LP that can demonstrate sustained continuity of repeatability over time, and certainly there has never been an "ahhh hummm" moment in all of LP's history.
seen alot of "dude, i stumbled onto something. it gave me a hit yesterday. this is it"......followed by unsustainability
seen literally thousands of "those conversations"
still waiting for the "ahhh hummm" lightning bolt moment, where i can hang up my "i told you can't manufacture a better outcome thru self effort beyond luck, fate".....hat
i wonder how much personal time i will get back for myself, from protecting people from desperation/wishful thinking land?
that would be nice
From the PB website: "About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks. Perhaps just one of those weird coincidences?"
From Visiondude: "you guys still can't change that 70/30 standard."
First of all it's not a standard; it's an overall average and the average makes no distinction of personal picks. Birthday numbers, dream numbers, and fortune cookie numbers are all included with system play. Because it's an average, in some drawings the percentages could favor personal picks. There is no actual data for personal picks so we can't compare system play to other non-QP methods.
Second of all, the "about 70/30" average only applies to PB and I haven't read where anyone claimed they have a jackpot winning PB system.
Thirdly, read the PB odds and payoff charts and it will tell you how many QPs you need to purchase before you can expect win any prize. Those numbers apply equally to systems so system player can expect to do no worse. The reason for using a system is to get higher than expected return, but even without a higher return the two plays are exactly the same.
We already know that more players choose QPs with no statistical advantage over PP and why about 70% of anything should outperform 30% of the same thing. Telling us what we already know redundantly is just more useless information.
"since we are in a mathematics forum, a little more "addition"... no single successful person at LP that can demonstrate sustained continuity of repeatability over time, and certainly there has never been an "ahhh hummm" moment in all of LP's history."
Read this:
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/216513
There are multiple winners on the very first page. These members have no legal, moral, or ethical obligations to you or anyone else to prove anything!
-
@RL-RANDOMLOGIC and Stack47: no matter what you post and no matter what kind of 'proof' you provide, the naysayers will continue to argue as to why it isn't good enough. They'll never be satisfied no matter what you say or post.
-
100The Hall Of The Mountain Kings Tennessee
United States
Member #73,902
April 28, 2009
15,378 Posts
OfflineI don't know whose right or wrong here and I'm not taking sides.
I play my own picks and quick picks (one of each on jp games) so I guess I'd be neutral.
All I'd like to add is that I enjoy reading this thread and I think it would be even better if you could all do it live on the Jerry Springer Show.
I think the added dimension of screaming, hair pulling and chair throwing would further enhance the entertainment value (for me anyway).
-
Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Apr 1, 2011
Jim, jim, jim.
#1, I have a system and it matches all my claimes.
#2 I have proved my claims to many, sorry your not in the loop
#3 What you call a laughable challenge to visionless dude has nothing to do with the lottery, This was just a
test to confirm what I already knew, just wanted to be sure.
#5 RL has not admitted any fallacy but I have proven vision just like you does not know what he/she thinks he/she
knows so well.
#6 Jimmy has not been trying to help anyone...... Anyone interested in the sidestep queens taticits should read
the LP news thread Missouri Senate to discuss privatizing state lottery.
#7 Jimmy still thinks that balls bouncing around inside a hopper will somehow produce a new set of numbers that
did not exist before the drawing. I can find all those same numbers in the matrix without fail. The numbers
bouncing around are nothing more then a method used to try and prove the draw is not fixed. Some of the
more advanced states use a RNG and while I guess most people in Missouri know what I am saying is true
because we use a modern day RNG vs the aincent tumbler that was in use around the same time as those
who believed the world was flat.
#8 All of my claims of winning are from past attempts while playing in the past. I started making scans of my
tickets that I played to show proof of what I could do back before my system post was closed down. I got
a PM from a member which will go unnamed asking me not to post those ticket scans and I thought why
would the leading critic of my system ask me not to post the proof of my claims in a PM while at the same
time continue to tash my system? Hmmmmmm.
#9 Yes Stack, close your eves to what is going on then you will maybe be able to see things the same way as
jimmy. I wonder if this is some sort of hypnosis plan used to control your mind, Oh nooooooo. Quick stack
open them eyes back up, Stack, STACK, wake up stack, Whew! that was close. Could of had another sombie
after me.
#10. Ever wonder why jimmy does not answer or try to reply to the main topics of post but has to pick on typing
errors or some other meaningless part of a post that I think that most just read over. Also notice how he
uses large fonts and color codes them so that they stick out. All this is an attempt to focus attention away
from the hard questions he cannot answer or for some reason chooses not to. Hmmmmm again.
#11.Jimmy like to throw up some worthless point trying to incite anger so he can lead the post in the direction
he wants it to go.
#12 No amount of evidence will ever suffice a person who is not willing to change what they think. He many times
ignores what the real digit system is and goes about ranting his twisted verson of what it is. You see the
digit system is nothing more then selecting digits to play as a method to reduce the field. He has never once
addressed this staying on topic. I ask again jimmy what are the odds of selecting the correct digits meaning
if I select 5 out of 10 or 6 out of 10 when using digits 1-2-3 to begin with. Not interested in any other long
winded math statement except the odds for doing this. Never ever has he answered this question which is
what the digits system is. Choose the correct digits and the winning set can be built from these digits. From
this point on it is a matter of filtering to reduce sets to a amount that fits my budget. He can't do the math
that is needed to do this and is a very good pointer for those interested.
#13 This is why he continues to bash what I say trying to lead people away from his inabilities. I could be wrong
but I don't think so. .
#14 I say that the sets generated follow in population the sets in the matrix.
Matrix percents are rounded
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 199500 PER = 35
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 229473 PER = 40
Actual drawings (750)
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 271 PER = 36 +1
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 277 PER = 36 - 4Actual drawings (100)
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 33 PER = 33 - 1
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 41 PER = 41 +1Actual drawings (60)
SETS WITH 5 TOTAL DIGITS = 20 PER = 34 - 1
SETS WITH 6 TOTAL DIGITS = 22 PER = 38 - 2I time my play to the days that I think digit totals will be 5 or 6 but do not limit myself to these days only
If I feel the data supports playing another value I might try to hit that also. Since I play conditional odds
based on the assumption that I have predicted the number of digits that will appear in the next set this
leaves me with picking so many of the 10 digits to put into play. If 75 percent of the sets in the matrix
have 5 or 6 total digits then I believe that 75% of the draws will also have 5 or 6 digits. Only 25% of
actual drawings will fall in the less then 5 or more then 6 digit range. If as I have found from my own
observations that QP's don't follow this rule of having the correct population of digits vs the matrix then
this would mean that a QP is not quite as good as many think and explains why so many tickets are
needed before a JP is won. If your QP falls into the 25% crowd and if the draws follow the matrix in
population then you only have a 25% vs a 75% chance of being in the winning end of the pool. I in
no way say that the winning ticket will not came from the 25% end of the pool but I do say that only
25% of the draws will. This is why I pick my own numbers using digits and don't buy QP's. I don't
say that just because I pick my own numbers that I can somehow make the draw match my numbers
but i think anyone with a brain could see the points I make. My overall system of plays is designed to
take advantage of this and tries to trap the lower prizes in the process. Even a 2 of 5 wins even money
for my 5-39 and should be considered doing far better expected. If you think that what I have posted
will win a jackpot anytime you want to play then I think that you need a few remedial reading classes
and a good dictionary. Whil I do make mistakes I think that I have made my point very clear. Some will
now try to cover this post with a bunch of crap to get it moved off the main burnner and shoved out of
sight so they can continue trying to save face. I win much more often then I ever did picking numbers
or buying QP's and for this I have been the subject of attack by a few who seem to have no interest in
the truth.
RL
"Yes Stack, close your eves to what is going on then you will maybe be able to see things the same way as jimmy. I wonder if this is some sort of hypnosis plan used to control your mind, Oh nooooooo. Quick stack open them eyes back up, Stack, STACK, wake up stack, Whew! that was close. Could of had another somb after me."
Last Friday when a clerk asked if I wanted play MM, I said sure why not, the jackpot is over $300, give me 5 QPs. When I checked my tickets I had a real eyeopening experience when no numbers or any bonus numbers matched the winning numbers. So much for the almost even money chance of matching at least one number I had.
And people wonder why some players decide to choose their numbers.
And to Jimmy, Quick Picks are generally defined as purchased tickets and specifically by me and the PB website. We already know that RNGs can be used compare statistics. Have any more useless information?
-
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Apr 1, 2011
I don't know whose right or wrong here and I'm not taking sides.
I play my own picks and quick picks (one of each on jp games) so I guess I'd be neutral.
All I'd like to add is that I enjoy reading this thread and I think it would be even better if you could all do it live on the Jerry Springer Show.
I think the added dimension of screaming, hair pulling and chair throwing would further enhance the entertainment value (for me anyway).
"I play my own picks and quick picks (one of each on jp games) so I guess I'd be neutral."
When the jackpot is high most people probably add a few QPs to their regular play. Josephus only asked what distinguishes a system from QPs and not which was better.
"All I'd like to add is that I enjoy reading this thread and I think it would be even better if you could all do it live on the Jerry Springer Show."
You bring the beer and I'll bring the shine, popcorn and Jerry beads! Maybe Twiggs will show up and both sides will attack him when he says "luck is the only factor".