Welcome Guest
You last visited January 21, 2017, 12:28 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 49 of 62
Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1958 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 4:33 pm - IP Logged

I thought about starting a new thread, but then decided that my question still perhaps falls under this thread. How do you determine if the system or methodology that you are using is successful as opposed to buying an equivelant amount of QP's or randomly generated numbers? Do you base it on number of hits, on \$\$ returned, or some other method? How do you know if you're doing worse than, equal to, or better than what you would do if you were just playing random numbers or quick picks? How long of a period of time (or how many draws) would you consider to be a fair enough test?

I'm still new and trying to figure this out, and any input is appreciated.

It will vary from person to person. It certainly would need to be beneficial somewhat. It also depends on the game though. The smaller the game, the more often it would need to hit. As far as whether or not it's beneficial depends on the person. Some people may consider anything more than breaking even as beneficial. For some, they may want to be a couple hundred ahead every so often. Then there's some that are going after millions. I know I wouldn't mind winning Saturday's Hoosier Lotto jackpot of \$15,000,000.

Gonna win.

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 4:50 pm - IP Logged

I thought about starting a new thread, but then decided that my question still perhaps falls under this thread. How do you determine if the system or methodology that you are using is successful as opposed to buying an equivelant amount of QP's or randomly generated numbers? Do you base it on number of hits, on \$\$ returned, or some other method? How do you know if you're doing worse than, equal to, or better than what you would do if you were just playing random numbers or quick picks? How long of a period of time (or how many draws) would you consider to be a fair enough test?

I'm still new and trying to figure this out, and any input is appreciated.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, but I tend to believe somewhat strongly that a system that groups outrageous clusters and combinations during sorts and filtering while backtesting, but hits zero-to-none when tested on a future draw is a sure sign of being onto something but slightly off somewhere within the system ... out of tune in some way that, if discovered and corrected or adjusted, will be a winner.  I consider that a success waiting for more work.

I believe a great system out of sinc can assure a profoundly lower percentage of hits, no hits at all, enough to raise eyebrows and not be recognized as a winner in the making.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 10:49 pm - IP Logged

despite my purposeful lack of capitalization (et al),   both the "readers" and you can understand perfectly this is but another lame excuse on your part.

Your just a trite bit miffed i was able to call you on your little underhanded "Number Verification Comparison".

The notation that neither of the combo's had "QP" next to it had no bearing on your "inability" to participate in a fair mano a mano.

That was pathetic

You have a PM function.  if your too yellow  to put up,  PM someone else to do it.

Since you are so industrious with your excuseology,  maybe you can create a new account, and under a new username you could appear "brave",  and then do it.

Yeah,  "no one" can understand my ability to point out you can't back anything up.

I am still here Stack,  waiting for you to serve something up long term. <------------

Your lottery "claim" is like the issing birth certificate of lottery post

Noticed how i capitailized this time,  except the first sentence?   What excuse do you have for us now?

visiondude:  "The notation that neither of the combo's had "QP" next to it "

Nope, I clearly gave 3 choices:

1. 05-06-16-34-42  + 26
2. 15-27-45-48-49  + 22
3. 02-11-41-45-50  + 33
4. 10-14-18-28-48  + 39
5. 05-06-27-30-42  + 04
6. 04-24-43-44-49  + 25
7. 06-08-23-40-47  + 17
8. 20-23-33-35-46  + 37
9. 06-22-34-42-55  + 45
10. 12-25-41-43-49  + 46

(A) are they from an RNG?     (B) are they from a system?     (C) are they 10 lines copied from 10 purchased QPs?

How about you choose A, B, or C  and I'll tell you which one of the other two choices is wrong and you can keep your original choice or switch to the other remaining choice; you'll have a 50/50 chance even by guessing.

Deal?

Last chance to prove at least one of your posts are about the topic of this thread.

*my deepest apologies for accidentally checking "show all the quote text"

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1958 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 21, 2011, 11:11 pm - IP Logged

Ok. 10 lines for Kentucky's Pick 3 evening drawing tonight. Once again, just the second filter applied:

6-4-7
2-4-8
8-7-5
3-6-3
6-8-0
2-7-3
8-8-7
1-5-8
8-2-1
0-8-5

373 was the winner. So no hits tonight. No worries. We got a long way to go.

Gonna win.

light on my feet
United States
Member #356
May 20, 2002
2744 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 2:50 am - IP Logged

the answer is.......there is no way to tell,

and i already addressed this underhanded lame attempt at "proving" whatever i bring as not being "trustworthy" as pure QP's.

you thought you dreamed up a scenario where you could grind it all to halt,  by making what i would bring to be of "questionable" origin.

you temporarily suffered memory loss,  and "forgot" how good i am at highlighting how lame the excuses "you guys" attempt tp pass in here.

try again.

plus,  we now have other business to attend to.

remember how you have attempted at every turn to skate from a legit mano a mano?

maybe you can explain to the reading audience how you can "demand" that the only way  the QP's i bring could be legit,  is if they were "purchased",  when in the "interested in backtesting...." thread,   you challenged jimmy with an....

"How about we run a Monte Carlo simulation on \$100,000 worth of pick-3 bets over a 150 million years and see if the lottery maintains a 50% edge.

I've asked Buzz several time without an answer; if nobody can make a profit playing pick-3, who gets the \$18,250,000 payoff that his figures prove on a 50% lottery edge when there is an average daily bet of \$100,000 every year?"

"simulation",  with no money.    ummm,  that sounds vaguely familiar.

"asked him several times without an answer".   umm,  now THAT sounds familiar as well.

gee,  i observe a repeatable pattern developing on the selective integrity scale.

you just did,  what you said was "impossible" for me to do

look,  lets get down to the biznatch fast and quick.   there is never gonna come a time where you can ever best me in the integrity game,  on this topic,  so long as you take the slimeball route on the LP freeway.

you are the one that has talked the most arrogant sarcastic trash,  coupled with your feighned sidedoor  "innocent" assertions "that it's superior to QP's",  and you deserve the spotlight because of it.

now,  if your runamokitis  still  thinks you can best me,  fine,  because i will always make sure everyone else see's and understands there is no way you can.

on the eventuality qualification scale,  i will always be to demonstrate you can't,  based solely  upon your own slipups.

culling info.  piecing it together.  putting the microscope on it.  shining a light on it so others can see it clearly.  it's what i do

egocentric people always think they can best integrity over the long term.   trouble is, no one ever has in the entire history of the world

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

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

until further notice,  it's  france everyday

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 10:01 am - IP Logged

373 was the winner. So no hits tonight. No worries. We got a long way to go.

But again it matched 2 digits on 2 lines so you're on the right track!

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1958 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 12:00 pm - IP Logged

But again it matched 2 digits on 2 lines so you're on the right track!

Thanks Stack.

Alright guys. I added a couple things to the second filter. Here's 10 lines with just that filter for today's midday drawing. Once again, targeting box hits.

6-6-7
4-7-3
3-7-5
7-5-4
5-4-6
3-6-8
4-7-5
0-3-5
7-8-4
4-1-6

Gonna win.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 12:03 pm - IP Logged

Here's where my experiment stands so far using system pix vs random pix from the LP RNG. This is playing on Colorado's 5/32 Cash 5.

After 21 days (21 draws):

System:                                           LP RNG:

795 lines, \$614 won                    795 lines, \$244 won

What distinguishes a lottery system from guesses, dreams, and quickpicks? So far, \$370.

To be continued...

Give someone a fish and feed them for a day. Teach them to use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 12:11 pm - IP Logged

373 was the winner. So no hits tonight. No worries. We got a long way to go.

Hang in there, the top LP pick3 predictor averages 1 in 40 and you may match that once you fine tune your methods.

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

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 12:17 pm - IP Logged

Thanks Stack.

Alright guys. I added a couple things to the second filter. Here's 10 lines with just that filter for today's midday drawing. Once again, targeting box hits.

6-6-7
4-7-3
3-7-5
7-5-4
5-4-6
3-6-8
4-7-5
0-3-5
7-8-4
4-1-6

Good luck!!

Give someone a fish and feed them for a day. Teach them to use the internet and they won't bother you for weeks.

United States
Member #85047
January 7, 2010
102 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 12:28 pm - IP Logged

I thought about starting a new thread, but then decided that my question still perhaps falls under this thread. How do you determine if the system or methodology that you are using is successful as opposed to buying an equivelant amount of QP's or randomly generated numbers? Do you base it on number of hits, on \$\$ returned, or some other method? How do you know if you're doing worse than, equal to, or better than what you would do if you were just playing random numbers or quick picks? How long of a period of time (or how many draws) would you consider to be a fair enough test?

I'm still new and trying to figure this out, and any input is appreciated.

Brad Duke is the best example I can think of.

He won PB May 2005.  He said then he picked the winning numbers "using a series of numbers, he had been playing for years"

Years later in a Fortune magazine he talked about his "system."

He picked out the 15 most frequent PB numbers and used those in his system for the next 4 years.

Sorry, I'm new and not allowed to put up links.

Does his system qualify as a system?   Not in the true sense.

But I always find those stories fun to read.

RJOh posted some of the MF numbers from that time frame in one of the LP threads about Brad Duke.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19901 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 1:06 pm - IP Logged

Brad Duke is the best example I can think of.

He won PB May 2005.  He said then he picked the winning numbers "using a series of numbers, he had been playing for years"

Years later in a Fortune magazine he talked about his "system."

He picked out the 15 most frequent PB numbers and used those in his system for the next 4 years.

Sorry, I'm new and not allowed to put up links.

Does his system qualify as a system?   Not in the true sense.

But I always find those stories fun to read.

RJOh posted some of the MF numbers from that time frame in one of the LP threads about Brad Duke.

I've often wondered if Brad Duke just believed his system only improved his luck and it alone wasn't the reason he won because I never read anything about him trying for repeat with it.  He instead turn to professionals for advice on traditioal types of investments.

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

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1958 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 1:37 pm - IP Logged

312 was the winning midday combo. No hits this time.

Gonna win.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 2:35 pm - IP Logged

VD: "the answer is.......there is no way to tell,"

Anyone who buys QPs including me will say the same thing. But there are players that after looking at the QPs will ask to exchange them. Most of us buy QPs to get a piece of the action with very little hope of winning anything. We can say the satisfaction and the entertainment value starts after buying the tickets and before we know the results. If we hear the Jackpot was won in NY and we bought our tickets in California, we know we didn't win the Jackpot without looking at the tickets.

The choice between buying QPs and picking our own numbers is an option given by the Lotteries. They also give us the option of choosing the cash value of a Jackpot or taking an annuity. I've never read where anyone in those discussion demanded proof one choice is better than the other. Of course that's a bragging rights contest I'd gladly have because it would be between two Jackpot prize winners. I'm assuming the winner would be the one with the most money after the annuity expires in 26 or 30 years.

VD: "remember how you have attempted at every turn to skate from a legit mano a mano? "

The worst, silliest, and most illogical argument any debater can make is demanding proof of a negative. You lose all your points in a high school or college debate and probably fail the class. A deist demanding an atheist prove there is no God in religious debate is prime example. If deist can't prove to an atheist that God does exist, where is the logic in demanding they prove something doesn't exist when it's already established they don't believe it exist?

Another famous example of demanding proof of a negative was the guy going in front of the U.S. Supreme Court demanding they prove Obama's Hawaii birth certificate doesn't exist because he couldn't. Because he had no proof, his case of Obama ineligible to be President was quickly thrown out.

You have demanded proof SPs will beat QPs or any old like number of sets you can come up with even though to my knowledge not one person has made that claim. I made the claim a wheel with 46 lines using all bonus numbers has better bonus number coverage than 46 QPs and only a mathematical idiot would say it's impossible to use all 46 bonus numbers on 46 lines. I even conceded the fact it's possible that 46 purchased QPs might have all 46 bonus numbers but I'm not going to or need to keep on purchasing 46 QPs until I get the perfect set to prove something I know is a possibility.

Your purposed contests are nothing more than making an illogical and idiotic demand that SP players prove a negative. Showing out of context remarks as proof is just more proof you're a troll/toy. Why should anyone have to prove they never made the statements your silly contests are based on?

You already conceded the fact "there is no way to tell" what distinguishes 10 sets of RNG picks or SPs or QPs from the others. If want to give an example of all three together and explain any distinctions, that's your prerogative and you may even get some on topic comments.

VD: "simulation",  with no money.     ummm,  that sounds vaguely familiar."

If you didn't understand that I was talking about real money, why did you highlight "who gets the \$18,250,000 payoff that his figures prove on a 50% lottery edge when there is an average daily bet of \$100,000 every year?"

I could explain to you that because the simulation proved a 50% lottery edge and an average daily bet of \$100,000 would yield \$36,500,000, but you can't understand the math because you're mathematically challenged.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 22, 2011, 3:09 pm - IP Logged

Brad Duke is the best example I can think of.

He won PB May 2005.  He said then he picked the winning numbers "using a series of numbers, he had been playing for years"

Years later in a Fortune magazine he talked about his "system."

He picked out the 15 most frequent PB numbers and used those in his system for the next 4 years.

Sorry, I'm new and not allowed to put up links.

Does his system qualify as a system?   Not in the true sense.

But I always find those stories fun to read.

RJOh posted some of the MF numbers from that time frame in one of the LP threads about Brad Duke.

"Does his system qualify as a system?   Not in the true sense."

Back in the Stone Age when lotto games first started and people started making wheels, one of reason was combining any group of numbers to get better results. If Duke's 15 numbers were specifically arranged, it qualifies as a system and just the fact he used the most frequent 15 numbers justifies it too.

 Page 49 of 62