Welcome Guest
You last visited July 27, 2017, 6:52 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 32 of 62
light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 10, 2011, 11:32 pm - IP Logged

Since no one has a time machine, then yes, everything we do here is a guess at best. But certain statistical probabilities hold true over the long term. Keeping it real simple the average interval for a EOO/OEE/HLL/LHH draw in any pick 3 lottery ever created is less than 3. So if you see that it is out by say 9, does that really hold zero significance to you? I mean we know that a triple is only going to happen 2 or 3 times a year. Is this just a religious belief or is it a fact? If you were given two possibilities to wager on as follows: A. New Jersey will have an all odd draw within the next 7 draws. or B. New Jersey will draw "222" every draw for 7 draws, are you telling me these are equally as likely?

Again it comes down to time. A majority of states have had "222" drawn in the last 2 years which is about how long you would have to win before there is no chance to come out ahead. The other option you'll have 7 draws for it to happen. Now if it has not happened in 35 draws, which is the longest in a decade, is that completely insignificant? I'm not making assertions as to which one is better or if they are equally as likely I'm just asking your opinion.

the way i understand it is this...

since each ball has the same equal chance to present itself on every draw,  it is impossible  to predict which ball,  or a gaggle of balls together  as far as "what's due".

it simply defers it down to "nothing is due"

to a system prognosticator steeped in hoping it will,  it would seem "unlikely" that 222 would appear 222 times in a row,  but the fact that it is random,  and each ball has the same equal chance,  the correct replication is that it could happen.

"could happen",  as in there is no way to predict when,  or what order.

do i agree with you,  that a correct statement that the number 222 isn't going to "hit" 10 times in a row?

i would say yes, followed by a probably not,  followed by that it could,  based on randomness.

"you guys" make your wagers on........."that it will" (past due)

i (and others that know it's random) make ours on  whenever the ship comes in,  it comes in.

i do appreciate your show of class in the discussion of this

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 10, 2011, 11:53 pm - IP Logged

"trouble is....no one can predict what's "due",  because ethically speaking,  nothing is "due"."

"if anyone could predict past due into future profit dollars,  the lottery would be broke.

no one can"

I don't think he said he could 'predict' what's due. Guess what, everyone knows that it's impossible to predict the exact numbers that will show in the next draw. The idea behind system play, at least in my view is to attempt to monopolize on the observable patterns in order to better ones odds of winning the jackpot and/or win more secondary and tertiary prizes. And if someone, by using a system, can reduce their losses and perhaps even break even or get ahead while waiting on the near impossibility of hitting a jackpot, then go for it. If he's having overall better success going after 'due' numbers than he did with QP's, then that's all that  matters.

and i would agree with you (or anyone else)......once they can prove they can "predict" what's past due.

the semantics keep a changin,  but the debate remains the same.

there is no such thing as "observable patterns" in a ball machine drawn game,  because of the randomness built into it to prevent  pattern detectability.

i personally think it's wishful thinking applied to what systems players "think" they see in the unraveling of the gaggle of numbers.

does a "2" come up more often?  check

when's the last time i saw a "7"?  check

"8" sure likes to follow "3" around check

the "software" tells me 3872 is "due",  so i need to play THAT.

someone would have to prove they can actually predict what's "due",  and that "patterns" exist, and neither are true.

*********************************************************************************************

"I don't think he said he could 'predict' what's due. Guess what, everyone knows that it's impossible to predict the exact numbers that will show in the next draw".

"then you stated "If he's having overall better success going after 'due' numbers than he did with QP's, then that's all that  matters"

this illustrates my point exactly,  that "you guys" say you can, while always trying to distance yourself from the past numbers "due" boat anchor.

not to be rude,  but upfront.....which is it?

you say you can't predict "past due",   but then you have "better success" by going after "what's due"

past due,  what's due.......truth is......there ALL "due"

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 12:21 am - IP Logged

"I don't think he said he could 'predict' what's due."

Just like nobody to my knowledge on LP has ever claimed they used a system to win a PB or MM system either. It's called proving a negative or proving a claim never made. If nobody said they can predict what's due why would they have to prove they can?

I believe the key thing that distinguishes system from QPs is personal choice. SP players know they can do no worse picking their own numbers and know they can expect a better payoff if their system functions as intended. At one time I believed QP players didn't care what combinations they got and just stuck their 5 or 10 QPs into their pockets and checked them after the drawing. Apparently some QP players don't like the random combos they asked for, turn them back in for another set of random combos, and repeat as needed because they know the other sets can do no worse.

Ironic that both sides make their choices based on "it can do no worse" when the object of making the wager is to win.

"SP players know they can do no worse picking their own numbers and know they can expect a better payoff if their system functions as intended".

if you read the first part of his post,  it starts off  innocent enough.   plays the innocuous "everythings fair" tune.

then,  it's that little side door conotation that they "can".

key words "can expect" insinuates ability,  ability over the randomness aspect.   that's not true

you would have me in agreement on the satement "they can do no worse" picking thier own numbers.   that's a true statement in true random event.    each methodology employs equal opportunity

but to insinuate "better result",  and not being able to consistently demonstrate you "can",  and selling wishful thinking under the radar,  that's where i have to counter that notion.

you paint the "stacks" of life into the proverbial corner,  and they change their tune to sound more altruistic,  and re-package it so it looks equitable and innocuous.

whatev,  it still the same claim......and you can't do it.

no one can manipulate a "better outcome"

wisper it behind a wall,  bury one sentence among many......it's still not possible.

remember,  even "if" you could.....they would change the game again,  and again,  and again, and.......

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1958 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 12:35 am - IP Logged

and i would agree with you (or anyone else)......once they can prove they can "predict" what's past due.

the semantics keep a changin,  but the debate remains the same.

there is no such thing as "observable patterns" in a ball machine drawn game,  because of the randomness built into it to prevent  pattern detectability.

i personally think it's wishful thinking applied to what systems players "think" they see in the unraveling of the gaggle of numbers.

does a "2" come up more often?  check

when's the last time i saw a "7"?  check

"8" sure likes to follow "3" around check

the "software" tells me 3872 is "due",  so i need to play THAT.

someone would have to prove they can actually predict what's "due",  and that "patterns" exist, and neither are true.

*********************************************************************************************

"I don't think he said he could 'predict' what's due. Guess what, everyone knows that it's impossible to predict the exact numbers that will show in the next draw".

"then you stated "If he's having overall better success going after 'due' numbers than he did with QP's, then that's all that  matters"

this illustrates my point exactly,  that "you guys" say you can, while always trying to distance yourself from the past numbers "due" boat anchor.

not to be rude,  but upfront.....which is it?

you say you can't predict "past due",   but then you have "better success" by going after "what's due"

past due,  what's due.......truth is......there ALL "due"

I hope you're not assuming that all systems are designed to "predict what's coming". Some systems, like mine, use elimination. Using the past to eliminate combinations(sets of numbers) that statistically are not likely to happen on the very next drawing. For example, by simply not playing the set of numbers that happened the last drawing, you have cut your odds down by 1, and statistically gained an edge. Now, I know 1 combination isn't very much, especially when it comes to Pick 6 games in which there are millions of combinations, however, that is just an example. It does in fact go deeper than that. It is possible to eliminate millions of combinations that statistically aren't very likely to happen the very next drawing. This isn't 100% of the time. There will always be rare occurences where combinations that statistically wasn't likely to occur do occur.

Gonna win.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 12:51 am - IP Logged

and i would agree with you (or anyone else)......once they can prove they can "predict" what's past due.

the semantics keep a changin,  but the debate remains the same.

there is no such thing as "observable patterns" in a ball machine drawn game,  because of the randomness built into it to prevent  pattern detectability.

i personally think it's wishful thinking applied to what systems players "think" they see in the unraveling of the gaggle of numbers.

does a "2" come up more often?  check

when's the last time i saw a "7"?  check

"8" sure likes to follow "3" around check

the "software" tells me 3872 is "due",  so i need to play THAT.

someone would have to prove they can actually predict what's "due",  and that "patterns" exist, and neither are true.

*********************************************************************************************

"I don't think he said he could 'predict' what's due. Guess what, everyone knows that it's impossible to predict the exact numbers that will show in the next draw".

"then you stated "If he's having overall better success going after 'due' numbers than he did with QP's, then that's all that  matters"

this illustrates my point exactly,  that "you guys" say you can, while always trying to distance yourself from the past numbers "due" boat anchor.

not to be rude,  but upfront.....which is it?

you say you can't predict "past due",   but then you have "better success" by going after "what's due"

past due,  what's due.......truth is......there ALL "due"

Gee whiz, some unknown person on the internet thinks I am contradicting myself. Oh my, what will I ever do now?

OK, let me say it in another way: what's the difference between picking the 5-18-26-27-31-42 because you think they're due, and having a quick pick that has the numbers 5-18-26-27-31-42, if the winning numbers are 5-18-26-27-31-42?

Absolutely nothing: because if you're having more success playing one way as opposed to playing another way, meaning you're getting more money back than you did when you played it differently, then that's all that matters and I wish you the best and hope you do better and better. Because personally, I really don't give a flying fark how you arrive at your numbers, and I also don't have some silly incessant need to type out really long posts trying to argue with everyone who plays differently than I do because I don't like the way they arrived at their numbers or because I think the way they play doesnt make sense. As long as they can win more however they play, that's really all that matters.

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 12:56 am - IP Logged

"when you state "i know for a fact it does", it became your responsibility once you claimed it did."

I claimed it will always match 2 numbers on one of the 46 lines in every MM drawing and gave you easy to follow directions so you could test it yourself. Jimmy and I seldom agree and if he thought the wheel didn't preform as I claimed, with his mathematical background, he would have jumped on me with both feet by now, but he hasn't.

Nobody but you to my knowledge has ever disputed the guarantees of this wheel or of any of abbreviated wheels found on this site.

"btw,  i might be the only one willing to demonstrate it (or any other methodology) cannot create an edge over randomness,"

This statement alone shows your mathematical ignorance. There is nothing random about using all 56 numbers and arranging them so at least one 2 number match will appear on one of the 46 lines. And simple common sense should tell you it's possible to use all 46 bonus numbers on a 46 line wheel.

There is no payoff for matching 2 numbers playing MM, but since the 2 number match is guaranteed the chances of matching 3, 4, or 5 is slightly better than a random 46 lines with no guarantee of matching 2 numbers. Anyone who purchases \$5 or \$10 QPs occasionally over a year will tell you that one bonus appeared twice on their 5 or 10 tickets. Though not impossible, it's highly unlikely all 46 bonus number would appear on 46 purchased QPs. According to odds charts found on most state MM sites, players need to purchase 75 QPs before they can expect to match all 46 bonus numbers so again it's obvious why using all 46 bonus numbers on 46 lines has a slight edge over purchasing 46 QPs.

You either don't understand the difference between "slight edge" and "outperform" or you have way too much time on you hands and want me to waste my time on a contest that I already know the probably outcome. The wheel will match the bonus and QPs probably will too based on the high percentages of bonus numbers it will likely produce. While the wheel has a slightly better chance of matching 3 numbers because of the 2 number match guarantee, it still has to beat the odds. Either method will have to beat the odds to outperform the other.

Since probability says we can expect a loss playing either method, there is nothing to prove by having a contest. Now if you're your saying it's impossible for the wheel to match the bonus number and get 2 number WBS match, I'll take that bet with the stipulations you'll never again post on LP if one of my lines matches 2 numbers and one of my lines match the bonus number.

"you see stack,  if someone really had something.....they would have shut me up a LOOOOOOOOOONG time ago."

I'm assuming most people just ignore you, but if you're that confident in your ignorance, make the bet I just purposed.

your not changing the bet just to favor you,  and in fact if we are to do this,  you will have equal consequences.

a pretty weak show of your insecurity that the only way you will "agree" to it is if i "disappear",  should the dance go your way.

notice how my "demands" against you proving what you claim don't include your LP disappearance?

we will scratch your insecurity and general bizzare behavior off the ledger for a moment in favor of some fair rules.

rules that are based in getting down to the nitty gritty of what's true,  vs what's claimed.

will your whatever-you-claim-it-to-be "produce" 2 numbers on a line,  and match the bonus number.  yes,  no, maybe,  eventually.....the trick is will it do it consistently like you tell everyone  it will?

you do that consistently,  i will be glad to sing the praises of systems,  and even agree to leave as a sign of agreement that systems do work,  as part deux of why i am in here at all would be over and done with.

i would have no more work to do for the fence sitters.

but,  you are out of your wishful thinking mind that if you got lucky once, that i am going to agree on an exit based soley in luck.

you are more than a little slow if you thought i would agree to that underhanded garbage.

real men do things straight up.   remember the old west?   right in the middle of the street,  equal distance,  in front of everyone.

shoot,  my QP's can produce 2 numbers and a bonus number occasionally.  big whoop.

tell you what,  since you pushed out your chest again for the umpteenth time,  and you suggested it,,  lets see YOU live up to it.

if it thrills you so,  the thought of you being the source of my "exit",  then agree to the same terms.

in a mano a mano of your "what if" -  against my QP's,  and whoever has the most profit at the end.....adios amigos

that's a fair dance.

what you proposed only favored you.   gee,  i am surprised

funny how "people of strength" attempt to manipulate the situation that only favors them.

with your above "methodology",  of course you will get lucky .......eventually.

well ?

remember,  you once again made the statement (in the post above) that "you guys" can expect a better result playing your numbers.

before you (once again) say no.....think of your infamy.

same amount of numbers.  same amount of time stretched out for accuracy purposes,  and to remove "luck" out of the result.

there is now 1 more glaring difference between what you claim,  and what i claim.....i haven't changed my position once in 9 years of being at LP (straight up, mano a mano)......and you change yours daily

you can uncross your fingers now,  thinking all you had to do was get lucky once

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 1:29 am - IP Logged

I hope you're not assuming that all systems are designed to "predict what's coming". Some systems, like mine, use elimination. Using the past to eliminate combinations(sets of numbers) that statistically are not likely to happen on the very next drawing. For example, by simply not playing the set of numbers that happened the last drawing, you have cut your odds down by 1, and statistically gained an edge. Now, I know 1 combination isn't very much, especially when it comes to Pick 6 games in which there are millions of combinations, however, that is just an example. It does in fact go deeper than that. It is possible to eliminate millions of combinations that statistically aren't very likely to happen the very next drawing. This isn't 100% of the time. There will always be rare occurences where combinations that statistically wasn't likely to occur do occur.

to me,  systems are ALWAYS based in predicting what's coming,  based on what just was.

you may have worded it a different way,  but that's still what you are inferring.

emotionally i wouldn't bet that the same combo will come in,  it probably won't.

but my realistic mind tells me it could,  evidenced because it has

you stated "It is possible to eliminate millions of combinations that statistically aren't very likely to happen the very next drawing"

"millions"?     i hope you don't remotely believe that's true,  when combo's repeat in the very next drawing.

in the world of probability,  i see what you mean that 5678 most likely won't appear in the same exact order on the very next draw.  probably not.   but extrapolated out any further than that......no way.

that "extrapolated out" edict i just insisted upon is the reason no one makes consistent headway even in pick 3

for me, i just can't get past that each ball has the same equal chance of making an appearance each draw.

that notion kills future predictability on any level (in my mind)

you would have to convince me on the past due /  future it's coming down the pipe .....to get me on your side about this

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 1:41 am - IP Logged

Gee whiz, some unknown person on the internet thinks I am contradicting myself. Oh my, what will I ever do now?

OK, let me say it in another way: what's the difference between picking the 5-18-26-27-31-42 because you think they're due, and having a quick pick that has the numbers 5-18-26-27-31-42, if the winning numbers are 5-18-26-27-31-42?

Absolutely nothing: because if you're having more success playing one way as opposed to playing another way, meaning you're getting more money back than you did when you played it differently, then that's all that matters and I wish you the best and hope you do better and better. Because personally, I really don't give a flying fark how you arrive at your numbers, and I also don't have some silly incessant need to type out really long posts trying to argue with everyone who plays differently than I do because I don't like the way they arrived at their numbers or because I think the way they play doesnt make sense. As long as they can win more however they play, that's really all that matters.

i would hope that you would cop to it,  seeing how i copy and pasted your own words in context.

in the beginning of the paragraph you tried to distance yourself from the "past due" affirmation.

then at the end,  you noted that players banked their wishes on past due .

look,  in my rebuttal,  i answered you back for a post you made to me originally.

i didn't pick you out of a lineup

you made a statement of rebuttal, to me,  and part of that statement contained contradictions to your claim.

that is n't my fault,  and if you are to direct some debating points in my direction,  don't get all miffed when i slice it open

that's fair

do i care how you and others arrive at how you fill out a payslip?   ------> NO

but this is a forum that contains different ideaologies,  and not only the discussion of how to succeed,  but also how to not waste your time.

you guys can't blame me for becoming unwound when i highlight an inconsistentcy.

when you guys come unwound,  it's shows positional weakness.

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

New Member

Singapore
Member #106441
February 19, 2011
2 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 2:21 am - IP Logged

A system is an integrated of elements and methods to accomplish an objective.

If you are building a house, how the house will look like at the end depends on what are the components & methods you use.

The results of a lottery is not depend on what you choose. And that is how it is supposed to work.

However, to design a Lottery System is to have a best method that requires you to make the minimum guessing work but with greater accuracy.

If you can imagine each lottery results is a like a "random" building of a house.

A lottery systems will have all the components & methods, but what you choose may not be what the "random" house that has been built.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20097 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 2:31 am - IP Logged

I hope you're not assuming that all systems are designed to "predict what's coming". Some systems, like mine, use elimination. Using the past to eliminate combinations(sets of numbers) that statistically are not likely to happen on the very next drawing. For example, by simply not playing the set of numbers that happened the last drawing, you have cut your odds down by 1, and statistically gained an edge. Now, I know 1 combination isn't very much, especially when it comes to Pick 6 games in which there are millions of combinations, however, that is just an example. It does in fact go deeper than that. It is possible to eliminate millions of combinations that statistically aren't very likely to happen the very next drawing. This isn't 100% of the time. There will always be rare occurences where combinations that statistically wasn't likely to occur do occur.

Sounds like you're doing pretty much the same things I'm doing.

When I compare all the previous drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto(6/49) not only are there no repeats combinations of 6 but very few of 5 so I not only eliminate all those previous 660 combinations of 6 but all those 258 combinations that were one off from matching 6, that's an additional 258x660 combinations.  That's still only a drop in the bucket so I checked the old SuperLottoPlus file and the same things are true so I add those 543 drawings and that's 660+543 + 258(660+543) combinations I won't play.  I also won't play any combination that doesn't have a numbers from the previous seven drawings and I still have a hard time picking 20 lines with a match 3 or better.

Lately I've started identifying the number distribution patterns of winning combinations and found that 10% of them have a new pattern that never happened before so I may add that characteric to my future picks.  I don't know which combinations may come up next but so far I've not eliminated a combination that would have matched 5 or more and only a couple of times in 4 years eliminated one that would have matched 4.

I only play OCL when its jackpot is \$20M+ and the PB and MM jackpot are less than \$100M so I don't play it very often.

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

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 7:33 am - IP Logged

Sounds like you're doing pretty much the same things I'm doing.

When I compare all the previous drawings of Ohio Classic Lotto(6/49) not only are there no repeats combinations of 6 but very few of 5 so I not only eliminate all those previous 660 combinations of 6 but all those 258 combinations that were one off from matching 6, that's an additional 258x660 combinations.  That's still only a drop in the bucket so I checked the old SuperLottoPlus file and the same things are true so I add those 543 drawings and that's 660+543 + 258(660+543) combinations I won't play.  I also won't play any combination that doesn't have a numbers from the previous seven drawings and I still have a hard time picking 20 lines with a match 3 or better.

Lately I've started identifying the number distribution patterns of winning combinations and found that 10% of them have a new pattern that never happened before so I may add that characteric to my future picks.  I don't know which combinations may come up next but so far I've not eliminated a combination that would have matched 5 or more and only a couple of times in 4 years eliminated one that would have matched 4.

I only play OCL when its jackpot is \$20M+ and the PB and MM jackpot are less than \$100M so I don't play it very often.

RJOH:  Some combinations seem to hit so rarely on any lottery anywhere as to be worth avoiding.  A surprising lot of them for pick 6 games.  I've noticed a lot of people predicting keno games on the Prediction Board have an aptitude for picking match 0.  I've wondered if maybe building combinations with the least likelihood of hitting might not be the method they're using.

I've never found one that hasn't hit in a million draws but it's cumbersome to filter files of that size and the numbers of combinations possible encourage using it to target combinations as a building/rejection tool rather than scouting expeditions.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 10:47 am - IP Logged

i would hope that you would cop to it,  seeing how i copy and pasted your own words in context.

in the beginning of the paragraph you tried to distance yourself from the "past due" affirmation.

then at the end,  you noted that players banked their wishes on past due .

look,  in my rebuttal,  i answered you back for a post you made to me originally.

i didn't pick you out of a lineup

you made a statement of rebuttal, to me,  and part of that statement contained contradictions to your claim.

that is n't my fault,  and if you are to direct some debating points in my direction,  don't get all miffed when i slice it open

that's fair

do i care how you and others arrive at how you fill out a payslip?   ------> NO

but this is a forum that contains different ideaologies,  and not only the discussion of how to succeed,  but also how to not waste your time.

you guys can't blame me for becoming unwound when i highlight an inconsistentcy.

when you guys come unwound,  it's shows positional weakness.

You need to get a life, man.

I did not contradict myself, either you are ignoring parts of my post, I am not explaining myself well, you simply don't understand system play, or you just like starting trouble. And I didn't 'note that players banked their wishes on past due'. I replied about 1 player who made a comment about past due. Many different players bank their wishes on many different things.

I said that no one can predict the next draw. Period. No one has some secret ball that says 'tonites draw will be: 1,2,3,4,5'. Get it? That's what I mean by 'no one can predict'.

Again: no one can predict what the 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 numbers will be on a regular basis. And actually, from what I've seen, no system player even thinks they can regularly predict the next draw. Get it?

However, having read other posts by other system players here, it appears to me that system player do tend to eliminate #'s or combinations that they believe may not show up, and will play numbers and combinations they think have a better chance of being drawn. They're not saying they will be drawn, but that they think they have a better chance or better odds of being drawn. It could be 10 numbers, 15 numbers, or 20 or more numbers that they play. That is different from 'predicting'. Maybe that's the part you don't get.

So, as I said, no one can predict numbers, including due numbers. No one can accurately say "'35' is due and therefore I predict it will be drawn tonite'. But if someone sees some numbers that have not played in a while and feels they may have a better chance than others of being drawn, then they may play those numbers, and I think they should go for it. Especially if it's working for them. Because if that method is working, then hallelujah that's the whole idea of system play. But in my view, trying to eliminate numbers and trying to play other numbers is different from 'predicting'. Maybe one can call it trying to make a more well-educated guess. Get it?

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 11:31 am - IP Logged

You need to get a life, man.

I did not contradict myself, either you are ignoring parts of my post, I am not explaining myself well, you simply don't understand system play, or you just like starting trouble. And I didn't 'note that players banked their wishes on past due'. I replied about 1 player who made a comment about past due. Many different players bank their wishes on many different things.

I said that no one can predict the next draw. Period. No one has some secret ball that says 'tonites draw will be: 1,2,3,4,5'. Get it? That's what I mean by 'no one can predict'.

Again: no one can predict what the 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 numbers will be on a regular basis. And actually, from what I've seen, no system player even thinks they can regularly predict the next draw. Get it?

However, having read other posts by other system players here, it appears to me that system player do tend to eliminate #'s or combinations that they believe may not show up, and will play numbers and combinations they think have a better chance of being drawn. They're not saying they will be drawn, but that they think they have a better chance or better odds of being drawn. It could be 10 numbers, 15 numbers, or 20 or more numbers that they play. That is different from 'predicting'. Maybe that's the part you don't get.

So, as I said, no one can predict numbers, including due numbers. No one can accurately say "'35' is due and therefore I predict it will be drawn tonite'. But if someone sees some numbers that have not played in a while and feels they may have a better chance than others of being drawn, then they may play those numbers, and I think they should go for it. Especially if it's working for them. Because if that method is working, then hallelujah that's the whole idea of system play. But in my view, trying to eliminate numbers and trying to play other numbers is different from 'predicting'. Maybe one can call it trying to make a more well-educated guess. Get it?

amerikan:  "That is different from 'predicting'" seems to run contrary to RJOH's most recent posts, but I suppose there's a fine line between predicting and attempting to make educated guesses by whatever means and tools a person trying to anticipate a future lottery draw might experiment with.  The guy you're responding to couldn't care less and doesn't make that distinction.  The distinction is between your motives and intentions, and his/her motives intentions in having these discussions.

Your motives involve trying to find and learn methods for making better guesses, more accurate predictions, finding ways to become as successful as possible in following a pastime you enjoy.

His/her motives involving finding methods to distract you in any way possible from anything that might lead you in that direction.  His/her concern is that you'll waste time, energy and money pursuing what interests you, rather than spending your time, energy and money on pastimes she/she values and considers worthwhile.

For instance, she/she considers it valuable to spend his/her time, energy and the cost of LP membership annually attempting to persuade players to channel their interests away from the direction you've chosen and into the direction he/she's chosen.  Or, failing that, finding means of disrupting, demeaning, denouncing and otherwise discouraging focused discussion and exchanges of ideas he/she believes to be a waste of time within his/her value system.

Either by vocation, or avocation.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 11:59 am - IP Logged

amerikan:  "That is different from 'predicting'" seems to run contrary to RJOH's most recent posts, but I suppose there's a fine line between predicting and attempting to make educated guesses by whatever means and tools a person trying to anticipate a future lottery draw might experiment with.  The guy you're responding to couldn't care less and doesn't make that distinction.  The distinction is between your motives and intentions, and his/her motives intentions in having these discussions.

Your motives involve trying to find and learn methods for making better guesses, more accurate predictions, finding ways to become as successful as possible in following a pastime you enjoy.

His/her motives involving finding methods to distract you in any way possible from anything that might lead you in that direction.  His/her concern is that you'll waste time, energy and money pursuing what interests you, rather than spending your time, energy and money on pastimes she/she values and considers worthwhile.

For instance, she/she considers it valuable to spend his/her time, energy and the cost of LP membership annually attempting to persuade players to channel their interests away from the direction you've chosen and into the direction he/she's chosen.  Or, failing that, finding means of disrupting, demeaning, denouncing and otherwise discouraging focused discussion and exchanges of ideas he/she believes to be a waste of time within his/her value system.

Either by vocation, or avocation.

Yeah, I get the feeling that the QP supporters aren't here to share why they like QP's or why they've had equal or better success with QP, but are here rather to play a game of 'gotcha' and to pick apart anything that the system players might say. There are quite a few intelligent posters here who have shared their ideas and methods and I've learned a tremendous amount from them. And then there are a few who, rather than sharing what works, seem intent on simply unraveling whatever conversations go on about system play, and offer nothing enlightening or beneficial.

My only goal is to win a jackpot, and short of that it's to minimize my losses and maximize my winnings. If someone can show me how QP's can do that better than what I am doing now, I am certainly open to it. However, I enjoy what I'm doing, I love system play, it's a great pastime for me, and if I've had better success with system play than I've ever had with QP's, then I don't see the reason to change to QP's even if someone else thinks that system play is a waste of time and there is no difference between QP's and SP's.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7516 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 12:41 pm - IP Logged

your not changing the bet just to favor you,  and in fact if we are to do this,  you will have equal consequences.

a pretty weak show of your insecurity that the only way you will "agree" to it is if i "disappear",  should the dance go your way.

notice how my "demands" against you proving what you claim don't include your LP disappearance?

we will scratch your insecurity and general bizzare behavior off the ledger for a moment in favor of some fair rules.

rules that are based in getting down to the nitty gritty of what's true,  vs what's claimed.

will your whatever-you-claim-it-to-be "produce" 2 numbers on a line,  and match the bonus number.  yes,  no, maybe,  eventually.....the trick is will it do it consistently like you tell everyone  it will?

you do that consistently,  i will be glad to sing the praises of systems,  and even agree to leave as a sign of agreement that systems do work,  as part deux of why i am in here at all would be over and done with.

i would have no more work to do for the fence sitters.

but,  you are out of your wishful thinking mind that if you got lucky once, that i am going to agree on an exit based soley in luck.

you are more than a little slow if you thought i would agree to that underhanded garbage.

real men do things straight up.   remember the old west?   right in the middle of the street,  equal distance,  in front of everyone.

shoot,  my QP's can produce 2 numbers and a bonus number occasionally.  big whoop.

tell you what,  since you pushed out your chest again for the umpteenth time,  and you suggested it,,  lets see YOU live up to it.

if it thrills you so,  the thought of you being the source of my "exit",  then agree to the same terms.

in a mano a mano of your "what if" -  against my QP's,  and whoever has the most profit at the end.....adios amigos

that's a fair dance.

what you proposed only favored you.   gee,  i am surprised

funny how "people of strength" attempt to manipulate the situation that only favors them.

with your above "methodology",  of course you will get lucky .......eventually.

well ?

remember,  you once again made the statement (in the post above) that "you guys" can expect a better result playing your numbers.

before you (once again) say no.....think of your infamy.

same amount of numbers.  same amount of time stretched out for accuracy purposes,  and to remove "luck" out of the result.

there is now 1 more glaring difference between what you claim,  and what i claim.....i haven't changed my position once in 9 years of being at LP (straight up, mano a mano)......and you change yours daily

you can uncross your fingers now,  thinking all you had to do was get lucky once

"your not changing the bet just to favor you,  and in fact if we are to do this,  you will have equal consequences."

Just to be clear, if the wheel has at least one 2 number match on one line and matches the bonus number on one line, you'll never post on LP again. And if the wheel fails to match at least 2 numbers on one line and match the bonus number on one line, I'll never post on LP again.

"notice how my "demands" against you proving what you claim don't include your LP disappearance?"

I just did; is it a bet?

"will your whatever-you-claim-it-to-be "produce" 2 numbers on a line,  and match the bonus number.  yes,  no, maybe,  eventually.....the trick is will it do it consistently like you tell everyone  it will?"

My claim is the same wheel using the same combos on 46 lines will match at least 2 numbers on one line and match the bonus number on one line in EVERY MegaMillions drawing since the last matrix change.

Make the bet because you never offer any useful lottery information so it's not like your non contributions will be missed.

"my QP's can produce 2 numbers and a bonus number occasionally"

Then you should make the bet because I'm claiming what the wheel will do in EVERY drawing.

"in a mano a mano of your "what if" -  against my QP's,"

You can put your QPs under your pillow because you demanded that I prove the wheel can do what I claimed. The terms and conditions of the bet are clearly defined.

"you see stack,  if someone really had something.....they would have shut me up a LOOOOOOOOOONG time ago."

I really have something that will do as I claimed and you said it won't. Put up or shut up!

 Page 32 of 62