Welcome Guest
You last visited December 4, 2016, 5:20 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 28 of 62

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3962 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 5:11 pm - IP Logged

jimmy

Care to explain your smug remark below.

However, when someone claims that the reason the percentage of self pick (SP) winners is 30% is because the percentage of SP ticket purchases is 30%, you have a problem.

I don't remember saying that it is because they are SP just that 30% are won with SP'S

Can you tell me how many of the SP are developed system plays and how many are not.   Show me the proof that says all

lower prizes are evenly spread accross the board.  Your smug remark about the 70/30 ratio of sales to JP's is just another

one of your side steps to avoid the question posed.  Until you can gain this data then all your ranting and smug remarks are

useless.  I would say that as few as 5% of sales are DSP.   I have to adjust my play quite often but this is expected from a

real system or you could run it once and use the same numbers the rest of your life.    I would define a system based on

many things but the one that counts to most people is how much they win using it.  If you can't make it work for you then

don't use it, simple as that.  I also say that because some can't do well using a system does not mean that it is not good.

I would say that there are many systems out there that some sware by while others think they suck.   All the bickering

here is meaningless.  Do you really think that people are so dumb that they can't tell if they are winning are loosing with

a system.  Since I would say that around 95% or more of sales are really just QP's some picked by the terminal and some

picked at home then all your post have proved nothing.  Until you have the information that is needed to prove your claims

then maybe you should stop guessing about what is going on.  Those who believe you should reconsider what you have

said now that they know that it is based on incomplete data.  Being the person I am then I must challenge your claims

as being nothing more then what you think.

RL

Show me the proof that QP's win prizes at least even in proportion to SP's

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1671 Posts
Online
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 5:27 pm - IP Logged

jimmy

Care to explain your smug remark below.

However, when someone claims that the reason the percentage of self pick (SP) winners is 30% is because the percentage of SP ticket purchases is 30%, you have a problem.

I don't remember saying that it is because they are SP just that 30% are won with SP'S

Can you tell me how many of the SP are developed system plays and how many are not.   Show me the proof that says all

lower prizes are evenly spread accross the board.  Your smug remark about the 70/30 ratio of sales to JP's is just another

one of your side steps to avoid the question posed.  Until you can gain this data then all your ranting and smug remarks are

useless.  I would say that as few as 5% of sales are DSP.   I have to adjust my play quite often but this is expected from a

real system or you could run it once and use the same numbers the rest of your life.    I would define a system based on

many things but the one that counts to most people is how much they win using it.  If you can't make it work for you then

don't use it, simple as that.  I also say that because some can't do well using a system does not mean that it is not good.

I would say that there are many systems out there that some sware by while others think they suck.   All the bickering

here is meaningless.  Do you really think that people are so dumb that they can't tell if they are winning are loosing with

a system.  Since I would say that around 95% or more of sales are really just QP's some picked by the terminal and some

picked at home then all your post have proved nothing.  Until you have the information that is needed to prove your claims

then maybe you should stop guessing about what is going on.  Those who believe you should reconsider what you have

said now that they know that it is based on incomplete data.  Being the person I am then I must challenge your claims

as being nothing more then what you think.

RL

Show me the proof that QP's win prizes at least even in proportion to SP's

RL,

Was reading your post about wave patterns. Makes sense. Thinking it might give a back digit approach.

What do you think?

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3962 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 5:30 pm - IP Logged

R I G H T   O N   Rdgrnr  !!

Unfortunately, it will probably prompt certain people to beat the bushes searching for stats of PPs vs QPs comprehending one state's results for one day in one game.  If they can find them, they'll even point to the results over one hour at one terminal in one gas station as proof that they have an edge.

Amen

Still waiting for jimmy to prove that QP's produce at least as good as a SP on a ticket to ticket ratio including

lower prizes.  Jimmy likes to tally everything up and then average it out to define the best we can expect.  I

know lottery officals use this sort of analysis but it means nothing to the player.  What others win or loose has

no bearing me.

RL

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 5:56 pm - IP Logged

The reason the predictions boards were brought up is because someone claimed nobody on LP has ever used a system to hit a jackpot. We all were in agreement there is no way to determine how a system was used or even if any of the predictors matching 5 numbers in several pick-5 games played those numbers. We just know for a fact they did something other than buying QPs and that something matched all 5 winning numbers.

"Your NEED to believe you have control over your fortunes in the lottery is so great that it clouds whatever mathematical and logical insights you possess."

The majority of players purchasing QPs end up throwing their tickets into the trash, but some do the math and understand they can do no worse by creating a system. I gave a real example of how a system's player benefited from their number distribution in a 5/39 + 1/14 game. Repeatability depends on the method used to select the numbers, but it's obvious some method was used. Can a QP player expect to get just 6 numbers evenly distributed on 5 tickets with just 3 bonus numbers asking a clerk for 5 QPs?

"The lotteries are random, and this is a waste of time."

Spoken by a true QP player while throwing their tickets into the trash.

Nobody said the odds are better by playing a like number of PPs and you agreed they can do no worse.

Jimmy, you're beating a dead horse!

Stack47 says,

"Nobody said the odds are better by playing a like number of PPs and you agreed they can do no worse.

Jimmy, you're beating a dead horse!"

Sorry Stack47, their is no dead horse in sight; it's hiding in the bushes.  The claim that has yet to be either proved or retracted is that a certain DDM (Digit Distribution Method) exists that can net the player \$Winnings year over year for 20 years at a rate approximately ELEVEN (11) times that expected by chance!

You and your buddies have been working hard to draw attention away from that issue in this thread by focusing on 70/30 stats, but you surely didn't forget about it, did you?

How could anyone forget such an astonishing claim?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3962 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 6:05 pm - IP Logged

RL,

Was reading your post about wave patterns. Makes sense. Thinking it might give a back digit approach.

What do you think?

Gary

I was hoping that post would turn into a discussion on the inner workings of random.  I like the wave

idea but don't understand exactly how to apply it.  I think if we could dabble into how random works

that we might pick up a few things that could be used.  For any system/method to do well it requires

accurate predictions / guesses to be made.  Without these, the system will not perform at a level that

won't break the bank.  knowing how random works in a closed system could go a long way in aiding

in the selections needed.  I have some stuff that might prove worth a look but may have some problems

explaining how to use it.

RL

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3962 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 6:19 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says,

"Nobody said the odds are better by playing a like number of PPs and you agreed they can do no worse.

Jimmy, you're beating a dead horse!"

Sorry Stack47, their is no dead horse in sight; it's hiding in the bushes.  The claim that has yet to be either proved or retracted is that a certain DDM (Digit Distribution Method) exists that can net the player \$Winnings year over year for 20 years at a rate approximately ELEVEN (11) times that expected by chance!

You and your buddies have been working hard to draw attention away from that issue in this thread by focusing on 70/30 stats, but you surely didn't forget about it, did you?

How could anyone forget such an astonishing claim?

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy

It seems that you and maybe one or two others have a problem with my claim.  I don't have to prove

anything to you.  It is funny how that you keep using then 11 times over 20 years as some sort of

banner.  I told you that these figures were for the new matrix and I did not start playing it until 6 or

8 months after it started.  I want to say that 11 X would not even touch my ROI for many of those 20

years as I made more in one day then I play in the whole year. Back when my game was a 5-44 a 4 of 5

paid \$750.00 and I remember hitting 3 or 4 in one day.  If you are going to trash my system at least you

can get your facts straight. The 11 to 1 is childs play, sorry if this blows your mind.  I still have the tax

forms because any claim over \$600 you need to claim it at the lottery office and fill out the forms. Maybe

I will send them to some of the people I like.  sorry again that it won't be you.

RL

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 6:21 pm - IP Logged

Gary

I was hoping that post would turn into a discussion on the inner workings of random.  I like the wave

idea but don't understand exactly how to apply it.  I think if we could dabble into how random works

that we might pick up a few things that could be used.  For any system/method to do well it requires

accurate predictions / guesses to be made.  Without these, the system will not perform at a level that

won't break the bank.  knowing how random works in a closed system could go a long way in aiding

in the selections needed.  I have some stuff that might prove worth a look but may have some problems

explaining how to use it.

RL

Finding a venue for discussing it on here won't be easy.  The thread will run 18 blind hysteria posts punctuated by one discussion post followed by 18 blind hysteria posts.  Distracting means of conveying ideas.

I've noticed my flock of chickens can't tell the differences between real chicken eggs, clusters of osterich eggs and golf balls.  They know they're supposed to lay their eggs where somebody else did.  If there are a dozen osterich eggs sitting around somewhere wondering what to do with themselves the hens conclude they're there to identify the nest and it's as good as a nesting box, even if the nesting box was primed with a golfball.

You primed that wave patterns thread with a golfball.

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1953 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 7:01 pm - IP Logged

no,  actually integrity in life demands that a person who can really demonstrate they can extract profit from personal effort is repeatability......otherwise it is luck

don't blame me,  blame the qualifying bar

or,  we can play the game your way,  and say QP's are obviously superior,  because they win more JP games,  and pick 3 players never end up on CNN

without proof a spreadsheet that screams repeatability,  all you can do is convince yourself it was "skill"

you act like i live to deny people success.

that would be a lie

i live for that,  but i also reside in reality,  the fast track to sustained "success"

the kind that really counts

Because we're talking about a game, nobody is obligated to prove to others that their system works. I'm going to use my system and if I can win Hoosier Lotto just 1 time, I will be happy. I'll still continue to play, but not because I'm trying to prove something to others. It will because of monetary reasons.

Gonna win.

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1671 Posts
Online
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 7:15 pm - IP Logged

Finding a venue for discussing it on here won't be easy.  The thread will run 18 blind hysteria posts punctuated by one discussion post followed by 18 blind hysteria posts.  Distracting means of conveying ideas.

I've noticed my flock of chickens can't tell the differences between real chicken eggs, clusters of osterich eggs and golf balls.  They know they're supposed to lay their eggs where somebody else did.  If there are a dozen osterich eggs sitting around somewhere wondering what to do with themselves the hens conclude they're there to identify the nest and it's as good as a nesting box, even if the nesting box was primed with a golfball.

You primed that wave patterns thread with a golfball.

Josephus, I stayed away from the thread lest I attract more golf balls too it! It's a good topic, should make an interesting thread.

I apologize to you.

I'm never angry, no matter what I write. Hope you too know that. There are times this little pixie invades my brain, but she's only there because she was the muse of my life. She never got angry; she got even. Or ahead. And once I got behind there was no catching up!!

I would hope your new posts are one of the reasons new faces have come here to brave the acidity. Until a certain poster vacated moral high ground we all played with kid gloves. I was thrilled baglady posted how funny the last thread had become. Humor is a welcome change in what was once a dusty museum back alley hallway.

Fort Worth, TX
United States
Member #106060
February 11, 2011
188 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 8:34 pm - IP Logged

Quite honestly, after spending about three months studying the lottery, I no longer think its that hard to win at least two straights a week. Just wait for whats due and go in big. Not a big deal.

How you do anything is how you do everything.

NASHVILLE, TENN
United States
Member #33372
February 20, 2006
1044 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 9:42 pm - IP Logged

truecritic

The only way to evaluate a system is to see how many of your inputs were correct.  A jackpot win

means nothing because it could be just a chance event.   Lets say that I need to input 8 variables

into my software which if correct will hit the JP.  Lets say again that after every draw I check the eight

settings to see how many I got correct.

If using my methods I manage only the expected correct choices then it could be considered that my

methods are no better then chance.  However if I select correctly 85% or more correctly on a day to

day play then I conclude my method / system is doing far better then chance regardless of the lines

or prizes produced.

I play on paper almost everyday meaning that I set the program using what I believe will hit.  After

the draw I update the database and click check.  I can then check every setting I used for that day

and know how close I came.  Many days I miss one setting by as little as 1 point which means that

one click of the mouse was all that was between me and a JP.

I am sorry if some can't understand this while others can't believe it but It is not uncommon for me

to hit 85% and above day to day.   No one in this world will every convince me that it can't be done. I

have hit 2ea 5 of 5's in the last couple weeks.  One took 108 lines and the other 100,  One of the big

gaps between jimmy and myself is that all his calculations are based on the return in wins vs loses

I don't rate my system by this at all but by how many of my choices I choose correctly.  If I looked

only at the winning tickets how would I ever improve my play.  If a setting proves too hard to predict

then I search for a replacement.  I change options on my software at least monthly.  I switch play

tactics almost as often as I change my undies.  It has taken much thought to produce a system that

allows for winning smaller prizes when my main selections are incorrect.  Using wins to evaluate a

system will never produce a winning system and if a draw can't be replicated then you have no means

to tweek it.  A very good system could go a very long time without a win so before anyone discards

anything they should know why it is not winning and try to make adjustments.  I have been making

adjustments for many many years.  The odds of the game mean nothing to me only the odd of me

hitting my settings.  If I hit my settings then I hit the JP.

RL

RL

I must agree with your methods, RL.  Drawn numbers mean little and those using 5th grade math along with past draws might produce a win every now and then but the cost will far exceed the gross.

I have said this before, a long time ago.  We must rise above the numbers.  By this I mean we must listen to what the numbers are tellling us and go from there.

Can you imagine two Romans (ancient times, I know) trying to add VII and XIX?  There would be all kinds of people ready to tell them it can't be done.  And they would be right.

Our current numerial system was not developed overnight.  Many years passed with people attempting to find a better way to add VII and XIX.  They did find a better way and we teach those methods to our children.

Keep up the good work.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7298 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 10:26 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says,

"Nobody said the odds are better by playing a like number of PPs and you agreed they can do no worse.

Jimmy, you're beating a dead horse!"

Sorry Stack47, their is no dead horse in sight; it's hiding in the bushes.  The claim that has yet to be either proved or retracted is that a certain DDM (Digit Distribution Method) exists that can net the player \$Winnings year over year for 20 years at a rate approximately ELEVEN (11) times that expected by chance!

You and your buddies have been working hard to draw attention away from that issue in this thread by focusing on 70/30 stats, but you surely didn't forget about it, did you?

How could anyone forget such an astonishing claim?

--Jimmy4164

Let's take a look at what a system would have to do to outperform expected chance by 11 times.

In the Ohio 5/39 Rolling Cash 5 game you have a 1 in 10 chance of matching 2 numbers so you can expect to get by chance an average of about 50 cents back for every \$5 wager. A 2 number match pays \$1, a 3 number match pays \$10, 4 numbers pays \$300, and the jackpot pays at least \$100,000. We saw the results of a system play from a \$5 ticket in the "Post your winning tickets" thread. It was a 4 if 4 of 6 number wheel that matched 4 numbers.

Playing the same wheel and getting the same 4 number match playing RC5 gets a return of \$340 and matching 3 numbers gives a \$23 return which is 4 times higher than the eleven that astonishes you.

"The claim that has yet to be either proved or retracted is that a certain DDM (Digit Distribution Method) exists that can net the player \$Winnings year over year for 20 years at a rate approximately ELEVEN (11) times that expected by chance!"

Since you already wrongly assumed the average pick-3 player will play the same number by betting the same amount every night for over 33 years and a group of Challenge players would bet \$3168 twice a week for a year, you probably wrongly assumed how many bets and for what amount RL made or any systems player would make every year for 20 years.

I don't know RL's betting strategies, but anyone could make 62 of those \$5 wheel bets, match 4 numbers only one time, and still beat chance by eleven times. I'm not going to assume a system player would continue play such a wheel 62 time "hoping" for only one 4 numbers match; nope I'm pretty sure their system for choosing which numbers to play is to consistently match 2 or 3 numbers with at least a 1 in 30 chance of matching 4 numbers.

Granted that or any other type of system would have to beat chance by eleven or more times, but since that's what the system is intended to do, why do you assume anyone would continue to use it if didn't work or be astounded when it works exactly as intended?

BTW, Secretariat died in 1989. R.I.P.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 11:04 pm - IP Logged

Because we're talking about a game, nobody is obligated to prove to others that their system works. I'm going to use my system and if I can win Hoosier Lotto just 1 time, I will be happy. I'll still continue to play, but not because I'm trying to prove something to others. It will because of monetary reasons.

Good post.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 11:15 pm - IP Logged

After reading this, I decided to see for myself what would happen with \$25/day toward a Cash 5 game using random numbers, and \$25/day using my own system picks.

After 3 days:

Random: \$75 spent, \$12 won

System:  \$75 spent, \$38 won

I think the advantage system play may have over random play, is in system play there is the tendency to play groups of numbers with similar combinations, so when you hit, you don't just get one hit but several. Of course, 3 days is not enough to be conclusive, so I intend to continue this for a while just to find out for my ownself whether or not I'm wasting my time with system play.

Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
993 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 5, 2011, 11:27 pm - IP Logged

 Page 28 of 62