Indiana United States
Member #48,723
January 7, 2007
1,961 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by visiondude on Apr 13, 2011
now see, this is how a person of a polar opposite opinion handles themselves, by esplainin as much as they can, while acting like a civilized member of LP.
i don't have a problem with the "GURU101's" of LP, just the arrogant / sarcastic semblances that require a little spotlight now and again, to highlight they can't live up to their own bravado
GURU, i do understand a program that spits out info that portends a more "likely" scenario, i just can't get past the each-ball-has-the-same-equal-chance-each-draw to appear reality, and to me that eliminates any "more likely" scenarios.
to me that's still forecasting what balls will do, and when
"there's a lot more information available from past drawings than just the numbers themselves".
you see, it's notations like these that really bother my "it's all just random" simplicity.
why? because in insinuations like the one above, where you insinuate that there is some sort of an observable pattern that can be detected, so that you can now have "tools" to capitalize ON those patterns.
you would have to explain how that is remotely possible in machine / ball drawings for me to flip on this issue.
and thanks for keeping your cool.
VISION
"you see, it's notations like these that really bother my "it's all just random" simplicity.
why? because in insinuations like the one above, where you insinuate that there is some sort of an observable pattern that can be detected, so that you can now have "tools" to capitalize ON those patterns."
There aren't patterns per se that you can capitalize on, but from drawing to drawing there is common criteria that fall within a certain range. If you exclude sets that don't meet the requirements you specify, then it very well could be a large portion of all possible combinations. For example, a single filter might eliminate an average of 4,000,000 sets 95% of the time. So that particular filter would actually be pretty good. I say "average of" because depending on what the results of the previous draw was, there could be a give or take of 50%. After that, you could use even more filters, but you have to be careful. You really want whatever the criteria for that filter is to happen a large percentage of the time, 99%, 95%, 90% minimum. The reason for this is because if you're using a lot of filters, you don't want to get into a situation where most of them are being met, but then you have 1 or 2 that find the winning set invalid because it just so happened to fall into the 5-10% rare occurence which is considered "unlikely", so the whole thing fails. However, there is an exception to this rule. Even if certain criteria happens say 25% of the time, it may still be a good filter to use so long as your potential odds, assuming you're correct, are extremely good. It just depends on what you prefer.
This is also why a system might not perform as good for one player as it does for another, even if both players have the same directions on how to use the system. Player discretion and what they specify will have varying results.
"you would have to explain how that is remotely possible in machine / ball drawings for me to flip on this issue."
You'll notice certain things happen naturally over time even though the event that's taking place is random.You'll notice that numbers chosen from the same pool span the range most of the time. How often is the highest white ball number in Powerball lower than 30?Not too often. So just by saying I'm not going to make my highest number less than 30, I have improved my odds of winning somewhat the majority of the time.
To be honest though, from a physical point of view, I don't really like the term "random". The word "random" doesn't mean anything to the physical universe. A lottery drawing appears random to us simply because our brain is lacking information.
United States
Member #13,130
March 30, 2005
2,171 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Guru101 on Apr 13, 2011
"you see, it's notations like these that really bother my "it's all just random" simplicity.
why? because in insinuations like the one above, where you insinuate that there is some sort of an observable pattern that can be detected, so that you can now have "tools" to capitalize ON those patterns."
There aren't patterns per se that you can capitalize on, but from drawing to drawing there is common criteria that fall within a certain range. If you exclude sets that don't meet the requirements you specify, then it very well could be a large portion of all possible combinations. For example, a single filter might eliminate an average of 4,000,000 sets 95% of the time. So that particular filter would actually be pretty good. I say "average of" because depending on what the results of the previous draw was, there could be a give or take of 50%. After that, you could use even more filters, but you have to be careful. You really want whatever the criteria for that filter is to happen a large percentage of the time, 99%, 95%, 90% minimum. The reason for this is because if you're using a lot of filters, you don't want to get into a situation where most of them are being met, but then you have 1 or 2 that find the winning set invalid because it just so happened to fall into the 5-10% rare occurence which is considered "unlikely", so the whole thing fails. However, there is an exception to this rule. Even if certain criteria happens say 25% of the time, it may still be a good filter to use so long as your potential odds, assuming you're correct, are extremely good. It just depends on what you prefer.
This is also why a system might not perform as good for one player as it does for another, even if both players have the same directions on how to use the system. Player discretion and what they specify will have varying results.
"you would have to explain how that is remotely possible in machine / ball drawings for me to flip on this issue."
You'll notice certain things happen naturally over time even though the event that's taking place is random.You'll notice that numbers chosen from the same pool span the range most of the time. How often is the highest white ball number in Powerball lower than 30?Not too often. So just by saying I'm not going to make my highest number less than 30, I have improved my odds of winning somewhat the majority of the time.
To be honest though, from a physical point of view, I don't really like the term "random". The word "random" doesn't mean anything to the physical universe. A lottery drawing appears random to us simply because our brain is lacking information.
The reason for this is because if you're using a lot of filters, you don't want to get into a situation where most of them are being met, but then you have 1 or 2 that find the winning set invalid because it just so happened to fall into the 5-10% rare occurence which is considered "unlikely", so the whole thing fails.
One work-around for this is to allow a combination through if it passes a minimum number of your filters (e.g. 8 of 10). Knowing the past success rate of each filter lets you calculate an overall success rate for the (sub) group.
In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.
Indiana United States
Member #48,723
January 7, 2007
1,961 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on Apr 13, 2011
The reason for this is because if you're using a lot of filters, you don't want to get into a situation where most of them are being met, but then you have 1 or 2 that find the winning set invalid because it just so happened to fall into the 5-10% rare occurence which is considered "unlikely", so the whole thing fails.
One work-around for this is to allow a combination through if it passes a minimum number of your filters (e.g. 8 of 10). Knowing the past success rate of each filter lets you calculate an overall success rate for the (sub) group.
Denver, Co United States
Member #103,042
December 29, 2010
547 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by JosephusMinimus on Apr 13, 2011
Thanks amerikan. I just spend an hour on this dialup downloading it but the installation file was evidently corrupted. Maybe I'll try again sometime.
OMG, dialup! That's tough, Joe. Good luck, I hope you can get it downloaded. If you do, I think you'll like it. I'm having better success with it than anything else I've tried. Let me know how it goes with the download.
light on my feet United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2,744 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Apr 13, 2011
"oh gee, 35 pages"
If we throw out your posts and the time wasting responding to them, it would be under 30 pages of useful information.
ok, we will play the game your way for uno momento.
go ahead and jettison everything i pontificated on, just in this thread, and then point us to one example of "useful information" that actually facillitates a player into............ for-sure-profit-land
no theories. not maybe's. no formulations leading to a "someday" scenario. no pontifications of feigned "certainties"
real hard copy examples of someone who actually does. * consistently*
not to be rude, but to be straight up, what's "useful" in chasing something no one can do?
they way i observe it , is people like you selling it as "fact", while still "backtesting" into oblivion.
according to your math above.....you have 30 pages from which to cull and build your case.
my "5 pages" (+/-) provided some people with enough pause in their life and wallet, that they don't have to put in 30 pages of "effort".
they can now relax and play responsibly
your just a little miffed that after being reminded of that fact, you seek to blame me FOR being "reminded".
tain't my fault you can't flesh out your bloviation
light on my feet United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2,744 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Guru101 on Apr 13, 2011
"you see, it's notations like these that really bother my "it's all just random" simplicity.
why? because in insinuations like the one above, where you insinuate that there is some sort of an observable pattern that can be detected, so that you can now have "tools" to capitalize ON those patterns."
There aren't patterns per se that you can capitalize on, but from drawing to drawing there is common criteria that fall within a certain range. If you exclude sets that don't meet the requirements you specify, then it very well could be a large portion of all possible combinations. For example, a single filter might eliminate an average of 4,000,000 sets 95% of the time. So that particular filter would actually be pretty good. I say "average of" because depending on what the results of the previous draw was, there could be a give or take of 50%. After that, you could use even more filters, but you have to be careful. You really want whatever the criteria for that filter is to happen a large percentage of the time, 99%, 95%, 90% minimum. The reason for this is because if you're using a lot of filters, you don't want to get into a situation where most of them are being met, but then you have 1 or 2 that find the winning set invalid because it just so happened to fall into the 5-10% rare occurence which is considered "unlikely", so the whole thing fails. However, there is an exception to this rule. Even if certain criteria happens say 25% of the time, it may still be a good filter to use so long as your potential odds, assuming you're correct, are extremely good. It just depends on what you prefer.
This is also why a system might not perform as good for one player as it does for another, even if both players have the same directions on how to use the system. Player discretion and what they specify will have varying results.
"you would have to explain how that is remotely possible in machine / ball drawings for me to flip on this issue."
You'll notice certain things happen naturally over time even though the event that's taking place is random.You'll notice that numbers chosen from the same pool span the range most of the time. How often is the highest white ball number in Powerball lower than 30?Not too often. So just by saying I'm not going to make my highest number less than 30, I have improved my odds of winning somewhat the majority of the time.
To be honest though, from a physical point of view, I don't really like the term "random". The word "random" doesn't mean anything to the physical universe. A lottery drawing appears random to us simply because our brain is lacking information.
thanks GURU.
i appreciate ALL the effort you expended above, and will get back to you tonight after reading it more in depth.
San Angelo, Texas United States
Member #1,097
January 31, 2003
1,648 Posts
Offline
To all:
When I watch the Texas Pick 3 ball drawings, I see two things:
1. 30 balls, 10 per vessel, being blown around by air, the intensity of which seems to vary according to a plan.
The balls are moving so fast that it's practically impossible to read the numbers. And even it you could
read the numbers, there is no practical advantage. Lottery sales ended 30 minutes ago.
2. Spacing. While the size or length of the spacing can't be measured visually, we know it exists, since
more than one ball can't occupy the same space simultaneously.
I, for one, believe that the spacing can be considered a constant. We can't measure it, but it's there.
Therefore, I further believe that the constant, or the spacing, can be quantified and used
in the number prediction process.
I call the spacing Gaps. There are 10 in each of the three vessels.
Further, since the 'constant' is being quantified, as a substitute for the real thing, a Pick 3 game
can be effectively reduced to a Pick 3 of 30 game.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by visiondude on Apr 13, 2011
ok, we will play the game your way for uno momento.
go ahead and jettison everything i pontificated on, just in this thread, and then point us to one example of "useful information" that actually facillitates a player into............ for-sure-profit-land
no theories. not maybe's. no formulations leading to a "someday" scenario. no pontifications of feigned "certainties"
real hard copy examples of someone who actually does. * consistently*
not to be rude, but to be straight up, what's "useful" in chasing something no one can do?
they way i observe it , is people like you selling it as "fact", while still "backtesting" into oblivion.
according to your math above.....you have 30 pages from which to cull and build your case.
my "5 pages" (+/-) provided some people with enough pause in their life and wallet, that they don't have to put in 30 pages of "effort".
they can now relax and play responsibly
your just a little miffed that after being reminded of that fact, you seek to blame me FOR being "reminded".
tain't my fault you can't flesh out your bloviation
"point us to one example of "useful information" that actually facillitates a player into............for-sure-profit-land "
I don't recall anyone saying "a guaranteed profit" distingushes systems from QPs or any of the other methods of play. The odds of charts tell us what payoffs we can expect to get. In 5/39 pick-5 games, players can expect to match 2 number for every $10 they wager so if matching 2 numbers pays a buck, SP and QP players can expect to get a buck back. For the same $10, PB players get a 28% chance of winning something and a 25% chance on MM.
Playing $5 cuts the chances in half and at 14% or 12.5%, SP and QP shouldn't expect to win anything. I saw a real $5 ticket on the "show us your winning tickets" thread that matched 4 numbers plus the bonus number playing a UK game using a 4 if 4 of six numbers wheel plus 3 bonus numbers. Had that ticket been on MM or PB, they would have cashed for over $10,000. As for consistency, once every 1000 drawings isn't very consistent but the payoffs sure make up for that flaw.
That example isn't intended to start a "if they hit" debate, just pointing out players wagering $5 shouldn't really expect to win anything. QP players can't expect to match 4 numbers on 1 or 2 lines plus at least 3 numbers on all the lines by matching 4 numbers anywhere on their 5 lines.
"they way i observe it , is people like you selling it as "fact", while still "backtesting" into oblivion."
The only systems I discussed was the one above and the 46 combo wheel. Don't know how that player selected their numbers, but since the wheel uses all 56 numbers and all 46 bonus numbers, I can't think of one logical reason why back testing is necessary. Nope you're wrong, I'm not selling back testing.
"my "5 pages" (+/-) provided some people with enough pause in their life and wallet,"
You're really stuck on that 46 combo wheel. I played it ONCE a couple of years ago when the MM jackpot was over $300 million and got the wheel guarantee. There might be some possibilities playing that wheel by someone who can risk $400 a month, but not me.
"they can now relax and play responsibly"
That $5 4 if 4 wheel might be an option for $5 QP players that are tired of throwing their tickets in the trash.
With 70% to 80% of purchases QPs, how many potential or current 20% to 30% SP players did you convince not to use a system and buy QPs by demanding proof, by pretending no LP member has won a sizable ($50,000 plus) jackpot, or by saying (my personal favorite) "the drawings are random"?
United States
Member #105,307
January 29, 2011
474 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by ameriken on Apr 13, 2011
OMG, dialup! That's tough, Joe. Good luck, I hope you can get it downloaded. If you do, I think you'll like it. I'm having better success with it than anything else I've tried. Let me know how it goes with the download.
I'm rural enough to make wireless something they do in places I don't bother knowing the names of.
I'll probably try another download late at night. Sometimes the phone line does a better job after everyone is offline and off the telephones for the night. I'm anxious to give the software a try and if I manage to get it downloaded successfully I'll let you know how much I appreciate you putting me onto it.