Welcome Guest
You last visited December 10, 2016, 1:24 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 37 of 62

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 13, 2011, 10:04 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.

If you're going to consider the "space" between one ball and every other, of the ten, you are looking at 45 ball-pair comparisons.

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1736 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 13, 2011, 10:21 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.

Bobby, I've looked at gaps from every angle i can imagine and haven't found a means to identify when or where they will strike. The chart below shows the there is generally one number apart from the others, in some cases two, with such a varied range. Although I haven't given up on the idea, I just haven't devoted much time to it since the data doesn't show consistency outside one number will generally be apart fromt he others by a double digit amount.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 13, 2011, 11:33 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.

"...a Pick 3 game can be effectively reduced to a Pick 3 of 30 game."

This statement I agree with completely.  I've even suggested in the past that Lotto System players should apply their methods to the [000-999] games by imagining all 30 balls in one machine.  It doesn't give the Digit people much to work with though, does it?

As for the balls being blown around in such a way as to make their emergence from the machine predictable, we part company there.  On that point, I don't think you'll find [m]any Mechanical or Aeronautical engineers to agree with you either!

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3985 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 12:08 am - 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.

Bobby

I don't know if when using gap strategy that making the game a 3-30 would help since the pick-3 is

really just picking a three digit number between 000 and 999.  I play the other way around by taking

double digit games and turning them into digits.  Many think this has no real use but for me it has

proven it's self over selecting numbers in that it produces many more lower prizes when I make several

correct selections.  If I was going to play I would use a random gap approach.  First, you know that each

digit has a 1 in 10 chance of hitting each draw and that the same digit can be drawn several draws in

a row.  Being that the selection process is random one would think that the next drawing will not repeat

forever and the gaps between each digit hitting will not be at predicitable regular intervals.   I like to

think that this irregular function of random can be used to help predict something that will not hit and

narrow down the field of play.

If a small pattern existed within random data continued to hit at a regular rate then the randomness

of the draw would be in question.  Anytime you see a run or pattern, before you decide what to do with

it make a few calculations.

Random draws or a coin toss can repeat several times in a row but each toss has the same exact odds.

However if you are looking at more then one drawing this changes the rules a bit.  Lets say that flipping a

coin produces the outcome below

current--------------------------<--------------------------------<-------------------------------------<-----start point

hhhthtttthththhttthtttthhh hhhth hhhhtttttttttthhhtthtthttthhhhtttththththhthtttthhhtththhtththththt

Look at the last 5 tosses = hhhth. If you calculate the total possible outcomes of 5 tosses then you

end up with 2*2*2*2*2  or 32 possible outcomes for five flips. (ttttt to hhhhh).  If you look at the series

of flips above you will find one run of tosses that matches last  5 tosses.  Now what are the odds for the

next toss to land on heads when looking at the last 5.  The next flip is still 50/50 and always will be.

What I say next is my opinion and will draw much fire from those that think I am lacking in math skills but

I have found it to be true.

If the next toss is heads then we have two 6 toss match patterns in 32 tosses.  If the next toss is tails then

each pattern hhhhth and thhhth have both hit once in 32 draws.  This does not mean anything by it's self

but if we analyze a much larger database using different size samples we can find how many heads to tails

patterns match before randomness takes over and breaks the chain of events and the gaps between them.

This is not a question of odds but a effect of randomness.  If you analysis each digit one by one you will find

that random wins overall meaning the larger the sample you can find the more likely it will not repeat.  If it

did then random would be predictable.

This is just a sample of how I analyze the digits and other filters.  Random breaks the chain of patterns and

careful study of past results or randomly generated data will give you a understanding of how to use this.

RL

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1736 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 12:21 am - IP Logged

"...a Pick 3 game can be effectively reduced to a Pick 3 of 30 game."

This statement I agree with completely.  I've even suggested in the past that Lotto System players should apply their methods to the [000-999] games by imagining all 30 balls in one machine.  It doesn't give the Digit people much to work with though, does it?

As for the balls being blown around in such a way as to make their emergence from the machine predictable, we part company there.  On that point, I don't think you'll find [m]any Mechanical or Aeronautical engineers to agree with you either!

Jimbooble-looble!!!!!!

If the idea of applying methods to imagining all the balls in one machine suits your fancy, why haven't you attempted to work on it?

Seems to me you would be the perfect person since it appears you came up with the idea.

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 12:53 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.

ok guru,  i read it over in an attempt to understand as much as i could while applying my limited math aimed logic,  but i still can't get past the future attempt at prediction based on "past results".

i kinda understand how filtering works,  even layers of filtering,  but what good (in my mind) is shuffling numbers around in any fashion, in any order,  as many times in the wash until it looks just right.....if all that ever takes place at intial inception is each ball having the same equal chance,  when an integrity based ball machine drawing occurs.

to me.....the powerball number coming up as less than 30 has the same equal chance each time it's drawn,  despite the statistical fact it usually never does.

"You'll notice certain things happen naturally over time even though the event that's taking place is random".

i think what we have here is a case of taking already occured drawings,  factoring in certain numbers that have appeared on a regular basis,  certain ones that haven't,  and calling that "a pattern".

i can totally see how system players arrive at that mentality,  because that is observably true.

what's not true (in my opinion) is that anyone can use any means to extract info that transposes over into the next drawing,  or future drawings,   making my statement that the powerball can be power than "30"  on every drawing "true".

i understand a bit better now (thanks to your explanation) that different system players may get different results when said system is individually tweaked by the particular player weilding it.

but what is telling is that after all these years,  and all the variations of systems that most everyone is devoted to pattern detection for future prediction,  that no one even approaches the front gates,  let alone the front door of success.

the constant discussion,  exchanging of ideas,  the constant in flux tweaking of someones "personal system",  the dizzying ways of attempts at it.....all point to me that no one can.

i can see where you arrived at the "past patterns" intersection.  i don't agree with that summation,  as my common sense tells me those are just the way the numbers fell.

what you will have to get me to believe,  is based on the pattern mentality,  that you can bank on certain numbers appearing within a certain timeframe,  while knowing lottery balls are inanimate objects,  and have no memory or conscience,  and certainly no "communication skills" betwixt each other.

that is a hurdle no one can jump

like i said,  i appreciate your decor and effort.

VISION

"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 14, 2011, 1:19 am - IP Logged

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

RL,  go  play in your non facto sandbox.    you have already proven your hot air balloon lacks propane.

unlike you,  i actually keep my word and handle my biznatch.

the reply i made to guru was to demonstrate just that.....keeping my word, and making sure he knew i would answer him,  as i was on my way to work and didn't have the time right then.

his effort didn't deserve a cursory flippant answer.

cracks me up,  for somebody who personally believes they are entrenched in such a "solid position" in life,  that you see me as some sort of an irritant who must be silenced.

that happens to a seared conscience sooner rather than later.

if you weren't entrenched in a weak position.....no one would bother you.

i am here to stay.

offer up feigned bloviations,  and i get to aim my "common sense" at your "weak position".

or......there is the manly way of dealing with me (and you know what that is)

-------------------------------->  your "system" against my QP's  <---------------------------------------------------

funny how "you people" run from that - but i never do

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1736 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 1:40 am - IP Logged

RL,  go  play in your non facto sandbox.    you have already proven your hot air balloon lacks propane.

unlike you,  i actually keep my word and handle my biznatch.

the reply i made to guru was to demonstrate just that.....keeping my word, and making sure he knew i would answer him,  as i was on my way to work and didn't have the time right then.

his effort didn't deserve a cursory flippant answer.

cracks me up,  for somebody who personally believes they are entrenched in such a "solid position" in life,  that you see me as some sort of an irritant who must be silenced.

that happens to a seared conscience sooner rather than later.

if you weren't entrenched in a weak position.....no one would bother you.

i am here to stay.

offer up feigned bloviations,  and i get to aim my "common sense" at your "weak position".

or......there is the manly way of dealing with me (and you know what that is)

-------------------------------->  your "system" against my QP's  <---------------------------------------------------

funny how "you people" run from that - but i never do

This could actually be fun. Except.....

Well.....

uhhhh......

How are you going to prove you are playing quick picks?

You'd have to post the ticket showing it was quick picks.

Who knows? You might be getting what you call quick picks from your own system.

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 2:02 am - IP Logged

"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"?

"As for consistency, once every 1000 drawings isn't very consistent but the payoffs sure make up for that flaw".

yeahhh uhhh.  ......but only if the player could demonstrate that the "system" was the result of the benefit,  but one hit here, one hit there doesn't prove anything beyond luck.

that is why sustained  observable consistentcy  is KING on the "proof" side of things.

which is why you hear systems players being braggadocious-attrocious about thier "wins",  while sweeping their losses under the truth closet.

what you did above in your example is but another example of systems players attempting to slip "truths" under the door,  and call it "fact" once it crosses the threshold.

truth is,  even if a person snagged a win big enough to overtake their losses,  it's still only luck until mr repeatability arrives on the backs of sustainability,  and his twin brother "consistentcy" brings up the rear.

"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".

nor do they care.  they are too busy playing golf with the time they would normally spend crunching numbers,  or are out to dinner with thier families instead of wasting thier time chasing nothing to get nothing in return,  certianly nothing matching the amount of effort.  they can afford green fee's and dinner,  and when it's all said and done,  they are FAR too busy collecting the jackpots.

you know,  the ones that you play for.

wanna discuss chasing "lower prizes"?   fine.   maybe you can extoll the "virtues" of incessant hours and effort chasing "small dollars",   but realistically  ------> LOSING MONEY.

seriously,  you are not trying to infer QP players are "wasting their time",  do you.

not me,  i wanna expend rediculous effort for little or nothing,  all the while "believing i can"

"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"?

since i live in the world of reality,  probably a few fence sitters here or there.

but out of the "100,000" or so that come in and out of here that observe common sense but for a moment,  hardly any.

i fully understand the wishful thinking quotient at LP,  and the vast majority want to believe they have a hand in the manipulation of the lottery,  i accept that fact.

as foreboding as that is,  i also realize there are people who have a handle on wishful think enough to factor things i say about it,  so they can decide before they waste time and money.

"they" (whoever "they" might be) watch and observe how every one of you guys always back down to a simple demonstration of "what's what".

any reasonable thinking person knows when they observe that time and again,  they realize you have squat.

"they" want to believe  (because observing is believing),   but guys like you let them down.

the title of king picker has been up for grabs,  but no one will snag the brass ring.

ego's and wishful thinking amalgamated all together,  me thinks that's a tragedy,  given the opportunity.

i guess the bigger picture is that i provide opportunity to showcase your skills.   maybe you can H5 me for that.

talk about odds.....i LIVE to go against the odds.....and what that means in here is if i only reached "one person",  and gave them back their life from selling themselves out to wishful thinking,  saved them money and time,  especially in regards to time invested in relationships.........every second has been worth it.

besides,  it sets the stage for my own "i am meant to"

there is that,  ya know

"all is but bloviation,  until a man proves what he claims"   1st visiondude 6:8

"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 14, 2011, 2:21 am - IP Logged

"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"?

fence sitters unite.

you want proof that systems players cannot extract profit out of the lottery thru their personal skill?

well tonight i have solid proof of that......from their own mouth.

make not i copy and pasted it verbatim,  in it's entirety.   no pulling "words" to build my case.  the paragraph i surgically extracted to prove "they don't believe it themselves,  is contained in the above quote.  read it yourself for verification purposes.

"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".

(1)  he played it "once" (but "believes" in it)        check

(2)  he infers "success"......but only if someone throws \$400 a month at it.  (which of course he is "unwilling to do")    check

any reasonable thinking person knows if something "works",  they would borrow money from their broke cousin and bet the farm.   check

this is what i am getting at.    these guys "believe it works",   sell it to everyone else "it works",  but don't back up that belief when the biznatch comes down.......and the excuses flow like the river yourafraideze

in reality,  that's called "checkmate".

when you find something you have the guts to throw \$400 bills at everytime,  let us know.

otherwise,  you just underlined the "why" of why i am in here.

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 2:30 am - IP Logged

"As for consistency, once every 1000 drawings isn't very consistent but the payoffs sure make up for that flaw".

yeahhh uhhh.  ......but only if the player could demonstrate that the "system" was the result of the benefit,  but one hit here, one hit there doesn't prove anything beyond luck.

that is why sustained  observable consistentcy  is KING on the "proof" side of things.

which is why you hear systems players being braggadocious-attrocious about thier "wins",  while sweeping their losses under the truth closet.

what you did above in your example is but another example of systems players attempting to slip "truths" under the door,  and call it "fact" once it crosses the threshold.

truth is,  even if a person snagged a win big enough to overtake their losses,  it's still only luck until mr repeatability arrives on the backs of sustainability,  and his twin brother "consistentcy" brings up the rear.

"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".

nor do they care.  they are too busy playing golf with the time they would normally spend crunching numbers,  or are out to dinner with thier families instead of wasting thier time chasing nothing to get nothing in return,  certianly nothing matching the amount of effort.  they can afford green fee's and dinner,  and when it's all said and done,  they are FAR too busy collecting the jackpots.

you know,  the ones that you play for.

wanna discuss chasing "lower prizes"?   fine.   maybe you can extoll the "virtues" of incessant hours and effort chasing "small dollars",   but realistically  ------> LOSING MONEY.

seriously,  you are not trying to infer QP players are "wasting their time",  do you.

not me,  i wanna expend rediculous effort for little or nothing,  all the while "believing i can"

"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"?

since i live in the world of reality,  probably a few fence sitters here or there.

but out of the "100,000" or so that come in and out of here that observe common sense but for a moment,  hardly any.

i fully understand the wishful thinking quotient at LP,  and the vast majority want to believe they have a hand in the manipulation of the lottery,  i accept that fact.

as foreboding as that is,  i also realize there are people who have a handle on wishful think enough to factor things i say about it,  so they can decide before they waste time and money.

"they" (whoever "they" might be) watch and observe how every one of you guys always back down to a simple demonstration of "what's what".

any reasonable thinking person knows when they observe that time and again,  they realize you have squat.

"they" want to believe  (because observing is believing),   but guys like you let them down.

the title of king picker has been up for grabs,  but no one will snag the brass ring.

ego's and wishful thinking amalgamated all together,  me thinks that's a tragedy,  given the opportunity.

i guess the bigger picture is that i provide opportunity to showcase your skills.   maybe you can H5 me for that.

talk about odds.....i LIVE to go against the odds.....and what that means in here is if i only reached "one person",  and gave them back their life from selling themselves out to wishful thinking,  saved them money and time,  especially in regards to time invested in relationships.........every second has been worth it.

besides,  it sets the stage for my own "i am meant to"

there is that,  ya know

"all is but bloviation,  until a man proves what he claims"   1st visiondude 6:8

"all is but bloviation,  until a man proves what he claims"   1st visiondude 6:8"

In a way, they make it easy for us, because, logically, I think that if someone asserts something without proof, then we can dismiss it without proof!

Also, I thought of a new filter that the gang here should jump on real quick.  I noticed that 80% of the winning numbers in the PA Daily Number game [000-999] fall between 100 and 899, so if you throw out those unlikely numbers [000-099] and [900-999], then you should have an 80% chance of winning, right?

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 2:31 am - IP Logged

This could actually be fun. Except.....

Well.....

uhhhh......

How are you going to prove you are playing quick picks?

You'd have to post the ticket showing it was quick picks.

Who knows? You might be getting what you call quick picks from your own system.

i fixed that concern toot suite by offering to use the LP RNG,  or any other RNG that someone else picked out,  as long as it is an integrity based RNG.

that being said,   vision is in a position of strength.   he doesn't have to fudge anything.

i will work with whoever to make sure the integrity of my attempt is solid and unquestionable

just straight up mano a mano over a good length of time.

time has a way of sorting out skill over luck

vision awaits

"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 14, 2011, 2:45 am - IP Logged

"all is but bloviation,  until a man proves what he claims"   1st visiondude 6:8"

In a way, they make it easy for us, because, logically, I think that if someone asserts something without proof, then we can dismiss it without proof!

Also, I thought of a new filter that the gang here should jump on real quick.  I noticed that 80% of the winning numbers in the PA Daily Number game [000-999] fall between 100 and 899, so if you throw out those unlikely numbers [000-099] and [900-999], then you should have an 80% chance of winning, right?

In a way, they make it easy for us, because, logically, I think that if someone asserts something without proof, then we can dismiss it without proof!

or.......you can always  "prove it" by demonstrating they refuse to throw their own \$400 at a "sure thing"

i like that....."someone else can,  but not me"

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1736 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 9:09 am - IP Logged

i fixed that concern toot suite by offering to use the LP RNG,  or any other RNG that someone else picked out,  as long as it is an integrity based RNG.

that being said,   vision is in a position of strength.   he doesn't have to fudge anything.

i will work with whoever to make sure the integrity of my attempt is solid and unquestionable

just straight up mano a mano over a good length of time.

time has a way of sorting out skill over luck

vision awaits

So REALLY it would be a system versus a system?

I don't see how that solves anything.

But good luck trying to convince someone you're actually doing the quick pick routine.

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1954 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 9:38 am - IP Logged

ok guru,  i read it over in an attempt to understand as much as i could while applying my limited math aimed logic,  but i still can't get past the future attempt at prediction based on "past results".

i kinda understand how filtering works,  even layers of filtering,  but what good (in my mind) is shuffling numbers around in any fashion, in any order,  as many times in the wash until it looks just right.....if all that ever takes place at intial inception is each ball having the same equal chance,  when an integrity based ball machine drawing occurs.

to me.....the powerball number coming up as less than 30 has the same equal chance each time it's drawn,  despite the statistical fact it usually never does.

"You'll notice certain things happen naturally over time even though the event that's taking place is random".

i think what we have here is a case of taking already occured drawings,  factoring in certain numbers that have appeared on a regular basis,  certain ones that haven't,  and calling that "a pattern".

i can totally see how system players arrive at that mentality,  because that is observably true.

what's not true (in my opinion) is that anyone can use any means to extract info that transposes over into the next drawing,  or future drawings,   making my statement that the powerball can be power than "30"  on every drawing "true".

i understand a bit better now (thanks to your explanation) that different system players may get different results when said system is individually tweaked by the particular player weilding it.

but what is telling is that after all these years,  and all the variations of systems that most everyone is devoted to pattern detection for future prediction,  that no one even approaches the front gates,  let alone the front door of success.

the constant discussion,  exchanging of ideas,  the constant in flux tweaking of someones "personal system",  the dizzying ways of attempts at it.....all point to me that no one can.

i can see where you arrived at the "past patterns" intersection.  i don't agree with that summation,  as my common sense tells me those are just the way the numbers fell.

what you will have to get me to believe,  is based on the pattern mentality,  that you can bank on certain numbers appearing within a certain timeframe,  while knowing lottery balls are inanimate objects,  and have no memory or conscience,  and certainly no "communication skills" betwixt each other.

that is a hurdle no one can jump

like i said,  i appreciate your decor and effort.

VISION

"to me.....the powerball number coming up as less than 30 has the same equal chance each time it's drawn,  despite the statistical fact it usually never does."

I'd like to point out I was referring to the Powerball's(the game) highest white ball, not the Powerball number.

Gonna win.

 Page 37 of 62