Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 22, 2017, 7:07 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

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

Topic closed. 918 replies. Last post 6 years ago by mayhem.

Page 33 of 62
3.73
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 11, 2011, 2:21 pm - 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. Smile

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

I Agree! and adding even if the system fails to function as it's intended, you can still expect to do no worse than a like number of QPs.

    bobby623's avatar - abstract
    San Angelo, Texas
    United States
    Member #1097
    January 31, 2003
    1405 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 11, 2011, 3:56 pm - IP Logged

    Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
    and get back to the question at hand?

    Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of
    'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

    If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
    then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

    If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are
    ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

    I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
    doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

    Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
    constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch.

    However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
    here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves.

    I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
    While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
    Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

    Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

    It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop
    a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

    What do you think??

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7344 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:09 pm - 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.

      "I hope you're not assuming that all systems are designed to "predict what's coming".

      The Challenge players aren't predicting the results of the next draw either. They are simply saying their 12 numbers and 4 bonus numbers have as good of a chance at being drawn than any other set of 12 numbers and 4 bonus numbers. I don't have understand the inner workings of yours or RJ's systems or even know which combinations you're playing to understand whatever they are, they too have the same chance of matching the drawing as any other like number of combinations.

      To my knowledge nobody has ever said their methods are "superior to a like number of QPs" but VD keeps insisting somebody has.

      "and statistically gained an edge."

      The 4 of 4 wheel using 6 numbers shown in "Show your winning tickets" thread proves what players can expect when a system functions as intended. The "odds of" chart show us the return we can expect to get buying any 5 tickets. The wheel beat the odds because the system for choosing the numbers functioned as it was intended. When buying 5 PS there is no reasonable assumption that if any of the 4 numbers on those 5 tickets are drawn, all five tickets will produce a payoff and can't reasonably assume any one of the five lines will beat the odds. If some player got 5 PS with the same type of number distribution, they would demand a new set.

      If the statistics from any game show that at least one number from the previous drawing repeated in 51% of all the past drawing, a ticket having one number from the previous drawing has a slight statistical edge over a ticket that has none. That slight statistical edge results in a 59.73% reduction in the number of possible combs in 5/39 game. By combining a number of slight edges might reduce the total number of combos to 20 and if all the slight statistical edges are correct, the system player hits the jackpot. It's a big "if" but we know what we can expect of any 20 combos from the "odds of" chart so any system can do no worse.

      We can find statistical edges without ever looking at past results by looking at the probable outcome of any statistic found in whatever matrix we're examining. The statistical edges are giving the probable outcome and not predicting the outcome as VD repetitively keeps assuming.

        RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

        United States
        Member #59354
        March 13, 2008
        4091 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:33 pm - IP Logged

        Stack

        I been trying to catch up with this post.   Here's what I don't understand,  If QP's are better then SP's

        then where's the math to prove it.  We self pickers are asked to prove our picks are better by people

        who offer no proof to support their claim. Hmmmm.  Maybe we should be asking what makes a QP so

        darn good and what is the math behind it.  Maybe we can get them to post there QP before the drawing

        and we will see how well they do.   I would tell them to keep the dollar in there pocket and I would futher

        say that if they do this every day then in just one year they will be at least $350.00 ahead based on a

        one dollar bet each day.  Most of the QP players would never do this because that one ticket could be a

        winner regardless of the odds being very much against it.  I would also say that at least 95% of QP players

        could benifit from this and be better off if at the end of the year had they taken my advice.  I would also

        say that a few would come out ahead but that it is nothing but chance and has nothing to do with it being

        a QP.   I can say all this by just looking at the odds for the game and feel very secure that no one will prove

        me wrong.  Even if 20% of the sales go back to the people as lower prizes what is the odds that any one

        person will get back over 100% of their total investment.  They might tell you that they play for entertainment

        only and I don't have a problem with that.  As jimmy would say, how else can a person go from "no chance"

        to "almost no chance" of getting rich for a few bucks.  Makes sense to me.

         

        RL

          visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
          light on my feet
          United States
          Member #356
          May 20, 2002
          2744 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:36 pm - 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?

          look,  i am not here to make enemies or cause trouble for sport.

          the 2nd part of why i am in here is to point out inconsistencies in what system players claim is "true" for the benefit of the fence sitters.

          whether you own it or not is irrelevant, but yes,  you made contradicting statements.     that isn't my fault.

          read your original post.

          first you attempted to distance yourself from "past due" in your opening sentence,  then in the last sentence you attributed success due to the inclusion of the due number methodology of play.

          you made the statements,  and they are contradictory as you stated them.

          i only commented on what you said,  and noted that system players are notorious for playing tug of war with that "past due" of numbers "predicting" thingy.

          the know it isn't true,  but they also know they can't escape it,  so it's an ever revolving door of sematics wizardry.

          the "past due" is an ethical boat anchor

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

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

                   until further notice,  it's  france everyday

            visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
            light on my feet
            United States
            Member #356
            May 20, 2002
            2744 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

            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.

            "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".

               turning that around to a full circle integrity laden statement....

            if anyone can show me how SP's can do better than i am doing now,  i am certainly open to it.

            been here 9 years.

            still waiting

            you see,  my problema always involves some one else insinuating the notation that self picking outperforms  QP's ,  as in the above statement.......inferring that SP's outperform QP's

             

            shoot,  i would be THRILLED Scared with someone proving they can even minimize their losses.

            even that isn't true.

            not that i have ever witnessed beyond incessant postulation "it's true"

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

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

                     until further notice,  it's  france everyday

              Avatar

              United States
              Member #105312
              January 29, 2011
              435 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:49 pm - IP Logged

              "I hope you're not assuming that all systems are designed to "predict what's coming".

              The Challenge players aren't predicting the results of the next draw either. They are simply saying their 12 numbers and 4 bonus numbers have as good of a chance at being drawn than any other set of 12 numbers and 4 bonus numbers. I don't have understand the inner workings of yours or RJ's systems or even know which combinations you're playing to understand whatever they are, they too have the same chance of matching the drawing as any other like number of combinations.

              To my knowledge nobody has ever said their methods are "superior to a like number of QPs" but VD keeps insisting somebody has.

              "and statistically gained an edge."

              The 4 of 4 wheel using 6 numbers shown in "Show your winning tickets" thread proves what players can expect when a system functions as intended. The "odds of" chart show us the return we can expect to get buying any 5 tickets. The wheel beat the odds because the system for choosing the numbers functioned as it was intended. When buying 5 PS there is no reasonable assumption that if any of the 4 numbers on those 5 tickets are drawn, all five tickets will produce a payoff and can't reasonably assume any one of the five lines will beat the odds. If some player got 5 PS with the same type of number distribution, they would demand a new set.

              If the statistics from any game show that at least one number from the previous drawing repeated in 51% of all the past drawing, a ticket having one number from the previous drawing has a slight statistical edge over a ticket that has none. That slight statistical edge results in a 59.73% reduction in the number of possible combs in 5/39 game. By combining a number of slight edges might reduce the total number of combos to 20 and if all the slight statistical edges are correct, the system player hits the jackpot. It's a big "if" but we know what we can expect of any 20 combos from the "odds of" chart so any system can do no worse.

              We can find statistical edges without ever looking at past results by looking at the probable outcome of any statistic found in whatever matrix we're examining. The statistical edges are giving the probable outcome and not predicting the outcome as VD repetitively keeps assuming.

              Stack:  That's a good summation of what you believe to be true.  A lot of members here who've been at it as long as you have, who are at least equally educated, have at least equal experience and are at least as intelligent as you are believe otherwise.  I'm pointing this out because your post went well beyond the bounds of your own personal viewpoint and was more emphatic about what others believe and might have said in the past than you are in a position to know.  There's a concrete body of evidence on this and every other forum on LP that many members as qualified to have opinions as you are to have yours do believe lottery results can be predicted by one method or another, or might be, and that draw histories offer one of the possibilities for achieving it.

              Whatever else he might be or believe the guy you are responding to, isn't misrepresenting himself as spokesman for a composite of viewpoints of the members here.  He's just being didactic based on what he believes is his own common sense.  Seems a point in his favor in that regard.

                visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
                light on my feet
                United States
                Member #356
                May 20, 2002
                2744 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:57 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."

                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!

                i will look over your "proposition" with an integrity fine tooth comb later tonight and get back to you.

                knowing you aren't exactly an integrity giant when it comes to this stuff,  often attempting underhanded stuff.

                even a cursory look indicates your attempting my "exit" on covering one bonus ball.   (laughing)

                pretty funny,  and a sad display of desperation. 

                nope,  your not that smart or "lucky".

                remember,  my desicion making is based in patience,  and not ego.

                and unfortunately for you i do contribute to lottery mentality and playing methods,  by reminding fence sitters not to waste their time and money,  to play responsibly,  instead of out of wishful thinking emotionalism.

                between the two of us.....your the one that encourages chasing wishful thinking.

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

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

                         until further notice,  it's  france everyday

                  ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                  Denver, Co
                  United States
                  Member #103046
                  December 29, 2010
                  546 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 11, 2011, 6:32 pm - IP Logged

                  look,  i am not here to make enemies or cause trouble for sport.

                  the 2nd part of why i am in here is to point out inconsistencies in what system players claim is "true" for the benefit of the fence sitters.

                  whether you own it or not is irrelevant, but yes,  you made contradicting statements.     that isn't my fault.

                  read your original post.

                  first you attempted to distance yourself from "past due" in your opening sentence,  then in the last sentence you attributed success due to the inclusion of the due number methodology of play.

                  you made the statements,  and they are contradictory as you stated them.

                  i only commented on what you said,  and noted that system players are notorious for playing tug of war with that "past due" of numbers "predicting" thingy.

                  the know it isn't true,  but they also know they can't escape it,  so it's an ever revolving door of sematics wizardry.

                  the "past due" is an ethical boat anchor

                  FTR, I don't use past due numbers, so I am not defending their use. I use another completely different system for choosing my numbers that has nothing to do with past due.

                  As for my supposed contradiction, I tried to explain it to you and you still want to call it a contradiction. Obviously, you want to view it how you see it and you refuse to see it from any other viewpoint. That's your choice and if you can't get past that, there is nothing more for me to discuss with you, I am not going to continue trying to explain myself. It's not worth trying to explain to someone who is going to argue with anything I have to say or with someone who is going to wrongly interpret my words, which you have clearly done.

                  Regardless, I wish you the best in your lottery play. Ken


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 11, 2011, 7:16 pm - IP Logged

                    Stack

                    I been trying to catch up with this post.   Here's what I don't understand,  If QP's are better then SP's

                    then where's the math to prove it.  We self pickers are asked to prove our picks are better by people

                    who offer no proof to support their claim. Hmmmm.  Maybe we should be asking what makes a QP so

                    darn good and what is the math behind it.  Maybe we can get them to post there QP before the drawing

                    and we will see how well they do.   I would tell them to keep the dollar in there pocket and I would futher

                    say that if they do this every day then in just one year they will be at least $350.00 ahead based on a

                    one dollar bet each day.  Most of the QP players would never do this because that one ticket could be a

                    winner regardless of the odds being very much against it.  I would also say that at least 95% of QP players

                    could benifit from this and be better off if at the end of the year had they taken my advice.  I would also

                    say that a few would come out ahead but that it is nothing but chance and has nothing to do with it being

                    a QP.   I can say all this by just looking at the odds for the game and feel very secure that no one will prove

                    me wrong.  Even if 20% of the sales go back to the people as lower prizes what is the odds that any one

                    person will get back over 100% of their total investment.  They might tell you that they play for entertainment

                    only and I don't have a problem with that.  As jimmy would say, how else can a person go from "no chance"

                    to "almost no chance" of getting rich for a few bucks.  Makes sense to me.

                     

                    RL

                    RL-RANDOMLOGIC says, "Here's what I don't understand,  If QP's are better then SP's then where's the math to prove it.  We self pickers are asked to prove our picks are better by people who offer no proof to support their claim. Hmmmm."

                    There you go again!

                    Hmmmm... I don't know who told you they believed QPs were "better" that self picks.  It surely wasn't me.  I have repeatedly said, and apparently MUST, say again, Self Pick Players, over time, will LOSE no more than QuickPick players.  And each has an equally likely chance of winning a jackpot, which will recover all of their prior losses, unless they were recklessly betting the farm on every draw.

                    Consequently, there is NO math to be found.

                      mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
                      Fort Worth, TX
                      United States
                      Member #106060
                      February 11, 2011
                      188 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 11, 2011, 7:43 pm - IP Logged

                      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 Thumbs Up

                      Visiondude,

                      The lottery does follow a bell curve. Certain types of numbers are represented more than others. Over any length of time, without fail, the numbers will follow this path. Quite simply because there are more of those numbers and less of others, depending on how you want to break it down. An easy example is Sum 3 Vs Sum 13. The laws of probability would state that those numbers represented in Sum 3 would occur less often than those in Sum 13. If only because there are more numbers that fit into the Sum 13 category.

                      Sure, it is still completely random, nobody can predict what will come next, but since you can prove mathematically that Sum 13 must happen more often, you can develop a simple system that uses those numbers at an advantage over QPs which may or may not pick the types of numbers that are represented most. Just because something is random and you can exert no control over it by any amount of wishful thinking, doesn't mean that it is automatically greater than your ability to work within those confines to a positive outcome. You drive to work in a chaotic "seemingly" random world (remember cause and effect) and yet you can decrease your odds of dying in a car accident by not driving drunk and blindfolded with your arms in the air with the pedal to the floor while preaching to the unfortunate person next to you that it is out of your control because you are not god and do not control physics....

                      And this is what gets me about the current arguments. The numbers will follow certain types of predictable models. They will form the same landscape over and over again. Not in the same order, but certainly in the same shape, over time. They always do. Given this fact, is it really such folly to navigate this landscape with purpose. Is it possible to do so without needless emotional baggage?

                      How you do anything is how you do everything.

                        ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                        Denver, Co
                        United States
                        Member #103046
                        December 29, 2010
                        546 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 11, 2011, 7:44 pm - IP Logged

                        RL-RANDOMLOGIC says, "Here's what I don't understand,  If QP's are better then SP's then where's the math to prove it.  We self pickers are asked to prove our picks are better by people who offer no proof to support their claim. Hmmmm."

                        There you go again!

                        Hmmmm... I don't know who told you they believed QPs were "better" that self picks.  It surely wasn't me.  I have repeatedly said, and apparently MUST, say again, Self Pick Players, over time, will LOSE no more than QuickPick players.  And each has an equally likely chance of winning a jackpot, which will recover all of their prior losses, unless they were recklessly betting the farm on every draw.

                        Consequently, there is NO math to be found.

                        Jimmy, that is certainly fair and reasonable. However, if we want to entertain ourselves and have a conversation about system play because we enjoy it and believe we can do better, why do the non-believers infiltrate the conversation with all their challenges?

                        I mean, if you don't believe, that's fine I have no problem with it. Go start an anti-system play thread so all you non-believers you all can harp on us system believers. But I love system play and would like to have an uninterrupted conversation with fellow believers about it.

                        Geez, I feel like I'm talking about church and religion to an atheist, lol. Big Smile

                          mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
                          Fort Worth, TX
                          United States
                          Member #106060
                          February 11, 2011
                          188 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 11, 2011, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

                          Jimmy, that is certainly fair and reasonable. However, if we want to entertain ourselves and have a conversation about system play because we enjoy it and believe we can do better, why do the non-believers infiltrate the conversation with all their challenges?

                          I mean, if you don't believe, that's fine I have no problem with it. Go start an anti-system play thread so all you non-believers you all can harp on us system believers. But I love system play and would like to have an uninterrupted conversation with fellow believers about it.

                          Geez, I feel like I'm talking about church and religion to an atheist, lol. Big Smile

                          But your not playing on the same field, with equal intent and the same rules. I could take a hardline approach as well and strike down anything. It's fun for a while because you see the dorks start to squirm but in the end it just wastes time that you could be using to improve a system. Some people need to get laid more often...

                          How you do anything is how you do everything.

                            Avatar

                            United States
                            Member #105312
                            January 29, 2011
                            435 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 11, 2011, 8:09 pm - IP Logged

                            Jimmy, that is certainly fair and reasonable. However, if we want to entertain ourselves and have a conversation about system play because we enjoy it and believe we can do better, why do the non-believers infiltrate the conversation with all their challenges?

                            I mean, if you don't believe, that's fine I have no problem with it. Go start an anti-system play thread so all you non-believers you all can harp on us system believers. But I love system play and would like to have an uninterrupted conversation with fellow believers about it.

                            Geez, I feel like I'm talking about church and religion to an atheist, lol. Big Smile

                            "I mean, if you don't believe, that's fine I have no problem with it.  Go start an anti-system play thread so all you non-believers you all can harp on us system believers.  But I love system play and would like to have an uninterrupted conversation with fellow believers about it."

                            Probably the most lucid statement on this entire thread, the most rational, the most concise in summarizing the problem with every thread on the math forum.  And the most devoid of an answer anyone could describe as sane.

                            Why would any rational person feel the need to disrupt attempts by people of like minds to discuss what interests them.  The people of like minds will find plenty to disagree about within the subject of discussion.

                              garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                              Dallas, Texas
                              United States
                              Member #4549
                              May 2, 2004
                              1844 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: April 11, 2011, 8:24 pm - IP Logged

                              RL-RANDOMLOGIC says, "Here's what I don't understand,  If QP's are better then SP's then where's the math to prove it.  We self pickers are asked to prove our picks are better by people who offer no proof to support their claim. Hmmmm."

                              There you go again!

                              Hmmmm... I don't know who told you they believed QPs were "better" that self picks.  It surely wasn't me.  I have repeatedly said, and apparently MUST, say again, Self Pick Players, over time, will LOSE no more than QuickPick players.  And each has an equally likely chance of winning a jackpot, which will recover all of their prior losses, unless they were recklessly betting the farm on every draw.

                              Consequently, there is NO math to be found.

                              Jimboob!!!!

                              If there is NO math to be found, how did you prove......

                              "Self Pick Players, over time, will LOSE no more than QuickPick Players?"

                              Magic Ju-Ju?

                                 
                                Page 33 of 62