Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 23, 2017, 7:51 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 36 of 62
3.73
PrintE-mailLink
visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 13, 2011, 1:39 am - IP Logged

oh gee,  35 pages and hardly any words of wisdom from true critic,  until he can hide behind the skirt of stack.

maybe you can "remind" the LP reading audience just how ostentatious you have been on the "systems are superior" front?

you know,  when your arrogance surfaced a time or three.

tell you what,  do what you can to pull stack into integrity land,  so he doesn't have to hang his head low from slimeball-itis.

you two can PM,  and together you can come to the table with a comittment to show long term what's what.

i don't mind two rodeo's in one

my memory is good enough,  that whenever you were finally painted into a corner,  you ran for the exit too.

confidence is good.....when you can back it up.

arrogance?   well that always leads to eventual embarrassment.

bring it - straight up - both of you

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

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

         until further notice,  it's  france everyday

    Avatar
    Kentucky
    United States
    Member #32652
    February 14, 2006
    7344 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 13, 2011, 2:02 am - IP Logged

    oh gee,  35 pages and hardly any words of wisdom from true critic,  until he can hide behind the skirt of stack.

    maybe you can "remind" the LP reading audience just how ostentatious you have been on the "systems are superior" front?

    you know,  when your arrogance surfaced a time or three.

    tell you what,  do what you can to pull stack into integrity land,  so he doesn't have to hang his head low from slimeball-itis.

    you two can PM,  and together you can come to the table with a comittment to show long term what's what.

    i don't mind two rodeo's in one

    my memory is good enough,  that whenever you were finally painted into a corner,  you ran for the exit too.

    confidence is good.....when you can back it up.

    arrogance?   well that always leads to eventual embarrassment.

    bring it - straight up - both of you

    "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.

      Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
      Indiana
      United States
      Member #48725
      January 7, 2007
      1958 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 13, 2011, 2:04 am - IP Logged

      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.

      Gonna win.Big Smile


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 13, 2011, 2:16 am - IP Logged

        Don't worry. I will win a jackpot.

        Could you please explain what, "Don't worry. I will win a jackpot." has to do with   THIS?

          Avatar

          United States
          Member #105312
          January 29, 2011
          435 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 13, 2011, 9:10 am - IP Logged

          Joe...it's Expert Lotto. I bought it 3 months ago and have had good results. They do have a free download so you can check it out.

          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.

            time*treat's avatar - radar

            United States
            Member #13130
            March 30, 2005
            2171 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 13, 2011, 9:21 am - IP Logged

            "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.

              Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
              Indiana
              United States
              Member #48725
              January 7, 2007
              1958 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 13, 2011, 10:35 am - IP Logged

              Could you please explain what, "Don't worry. I will win a jackpot." has to do with   THIS?

              I was just being optimistic. lol

              Gonna win.Big Smile

                Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
                Indiana
                United States
                Member #48725
                January 7, 2007
                1958 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 13, 2011, 10:35 am - IP Logged

                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.

                That's a good a idea. I'll have to try that out.

                Gonna win.Big Smile

                  ameriken's avatar - 33ojew2
                  Denver, Co
                  United States
                  Member #103046
                  December 29, 2010
                  546 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 13, 2011, 11:56 am - IP Logged

                  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.

                    visiondude's avatar - eye3logo
                    light on my feet
                    United States
                    Member #356
                    May 20, 2002
                    2744 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 13, 2011, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

                    "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

                                "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 13, 2011, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

                      "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.

                      VISION

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

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

                               until further notice,  it's  france everyday

                        RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                        United States
                        Member #59354
                        March 13, 2008
                        4094 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 13, 2011, 8:29 pm - IP Logged

                        thanks GURU.

                        i appreciate ALL the effort you expended above,  and will get back to you tonight after reading it more in depth.

                        VISION

                        VISIONLESS

                        Why would you need time to look over something before you give your one reply.  Too bad Lp does not

                        supply you a rubber stamp to save you some time.  I remember watching a bio of DeForest Kelley and him

                        saying  something to the effect of, how mays ways can you say "Jim, He's dead."  which he felt was the

                        main line that Dr. McCoy used in the Star Trek tv series.  Try and post something new or just say I already

                        answered this and direct them to the post.   

                        RL

                          bobby623's avatar - abstract
                          San Angelo, Texas
                          United States
                          Member #1097
                          January 31, 2003
                          1405 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 13, 2011, 8:44 pm - IP Logged

                          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.

                          Would like to know your view on this idea.

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7344 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 13, 2011, 9:12 pm - IP Logged

                            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"?

                              Avatar

                              United States
                              Member #105312
                              January 29, 2011
                              435 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: April 13, 2011, 9:28 pm - IP Logged

                              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.

                              Thanks

                                 
                                Page 36 of 62