Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 6:13 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 9 of 62
3.73
PrintE-mailLink
Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1954 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 28, 2011, 12:20 pm - IP Logged

"The ultimate judge on whether or not your system is successful is yourself."

I don't think that is correct.   Winning one time regardless of the size of the win doesn't mean anything. 

If a person plays QPs, he can only win with a quick pick.  Most people equate QPs with luck.  So, people that win using QPs are lucky if they cash a ticket.  If a person plays with a system, they can't tell if the system worked or if it was just luck.  In fact if they only win once, it is more probable that it was luck and not the system.

They may not care to prove it to someone, that is irrelevant.  They may not need to continue playing, that is irrelevant.  They got the benefit but that also doesn't mean it was the system that worked. 

You might believe your system won but you'd be lying to yourself (and others) if you claimed your system worked with only one win.  You can't be the ultimate judge by just believing.  Just believing means nothing.   It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established.  You can't claim it is a system unless it is repeatable by others as well as yourself.  Does not mean you are forced to give it to others but it has to meet those criteria.

"In fact if they only win once, it is more probable that it was luck and not the system."

The fact of the matter is, the source from which a win was generated will never be just from luck, or just from your system. The two will always play a role no matter how good your system is. No system can predict the results of every drawing. Luck will always play a major role in the lottery.

 

"It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established."


There are 2 problems with that statement:

1. A system doesn't have to be repeatable to be considered a system. A system should be compared to that of a tactic. Just because you're using the same tactic, and just because it's ineffective, doesn't mean that it isn't a tactic. It still is in fact a tactic. Same thing with a system. Now, determining whether or not the system is successful or not is an issue in and of itself.

2. There are no universal definitions or standards. And it doesn't have to work for others. If it works for me, that's all I care about. This is the lottery. I'm not out to win some big popularity contest. Now I might share my system, but I'm not going to guarantee that it will work for you. And if it doesn't work for you, I'm still going to consider it a system. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me how often my system should hit X prize. Nobody has the right to specify a timeframe to another person. So that means there's only one timeframe - indefinite. It might be a month, it might be a year, 10 years, 100 years, a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care.

Gonna win.Big Smile

    Avatar
    Kentucky
    United States
    Member #32652
    February 14, 2006
    7318 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 28, 2011, 2:35 pm - IP Logged

    Stack47,

    "Before we decide "no system has hit a jackpot" we have to know which game jackpot they were trying to hit. There is a huge difference between trying to create a system to win the $10 million plus jackpots in state Lottos, MM, and PB games than trying to create a pick-3 system with a $500 jackpot. Players decide the amount of their pick-3 and pick-4 jackpots based on their wagers."

    While that is true, I can't recall seeing anything like a "Pick 3 Changed My Life" series on TLC. Truth be known, far more money is made on selling information telling others how to hit the Pick 3 than people hitting the Pick 3.

    And personally, my idea of hitting the lottery isn't a $40 to $600 payoff.

    Yeah, I know, you can load up on a number but how often does that happen?

    Look at the prediction board here. What do you think the ratio is of predcitions made to actually played?

    This is a discussion board. The question posed was:

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

    My answer still stands. They (systems) hit less often, if at all. Any honest systems peddler will tell you the real money is in selling them. That's why they are doing so.

    "And personally, my idea of hitting the lottery isn't a $40 to $600 payoff."

    That's why I asked should we be comparing systems for a $600 jackpot to systems for multi-million dollar jackpots. Pick-3 and pick-4 games have no secondary prizes so those systems have to predict the drawn number. You can still collect something matching 2, 3, or 4 numbers playing pick-5 games and can collect a nice jackpot by matching 5 numbers playing PB and MM. We can assume the intent of a system is to match all the numbers so how can we compare one system that must match all the numbers to a system that can match less and still be successful? 

    A once in a lifetime PB or MM winning system is no different than someone hitting birthday numbers once in a lifetime.

    "My answer still stands. They (systems) hit less often, if at all. Any honest systems peddler will tell you the real money is in selling them. That's why they are doing so."

    If 70% to 80% of PB ticket sales are QPs, the probability is 70% to 80% the winners should be QPs so it's obvious why self picks win less often. Do you have an estimation on the number of pick-3 and pick-4 QP sales?

      garyo1954's avatar - garyo
      Dallas, Texas
      United States
      Member #4549
      May 2, 2004
      1730 Posts
      Online
      Posted: March 28, 2011, 2:38 pm - IP Logged

      Oh Joey!

      I was surprised when you mentioned trying to transfer your email address to RL-RANDOMLOGIC through the LP PM system.  My 2nd guess for what you're about here was writer/editor/advisor for poor RL.  It still is plausible, but it really doesn't matter.  You've made enough subtle attacks on me during your short tenure here that it's clear you definitely have a "problem" with Jimmy4164.   Regardless of your motives, you're not as astute as you think you are in your assessment of people, and I'm not going to help you understand why.

      Your esoteric, mystical, and prosaic approach to technical matters and dismissal of the traditional approaches which employ the scientific method and build on earlier knowledge and discoveries embarrassingly call into question your credibility.  And your attempts to denigrate me may endear you to some, but not all of the readers here.

      You confusingly said,"There is nothing in your history of posts I've bothered to read suggesting you see yourself as not already having a thorough understanding of everything involving lotteries."

      You really like double negatives don't you?  The knowledge required to understand lotteries relative to most scientific areas is trivial.  You may wear the crown. 

      When you go on about the reasons people study lotteries and add "...for some other reason including mine," I'm prompted to ask, JUST WHAT IS YOUR REASON?  You've alluded to an unspoken agenda, but nowhere have I found it.  My agenda is clear, and was stated in my early posts.  I think it is good for people to play the lotteries for entertainment, and to the extent they can afford it, risk some of their money on the chance of winning a jackpot.  I do NOT want them to have FALSE HOPES, causing them to spend more than they can afford, often at the expense of their families.  Other than to try to discredit what I say here, WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?

      Regardless of your answers to these questions, you will have no credibility in my mind, and to other's I'm aware of here, until you seriously address the legitimate questions prompted by your prose.  A good start would be to clarify which TX Lottery results you REALLY believe are somehow related to a Double Helix.

      When you come up with "a better understanding of the universe" I really think you should present it to not one, but several scholarly journals for review.  If you discover the Holy Grail of lottery systems in the process, perhaps you can incorporate the two.  Be careful submitting to Wikipedia; they're known for being pretty tough on people with "alternative" scientific theories.

      Your summary of me, one made after such a short acquaintance, bears repeating.

      "That is a human tragedy.  Somewhere under all those layers of concrete and armor there's probably still a seed of the original intelligence that produced the demon in the form of an A on a grade sheet."

      My oh my Joey!  For someone who has admittedly found little reason to read most of my posts, you reveal such angst that I worry what the future holds for you!  Maybe you're the Joey I remember who always resented my A, especially when he got a B.

      Now, perhaps you can dazzle us with expressions of your seeds of "original intelligence," the ones I'm sure you're sure you possess in abundance.

      --Jimmy4164

      Jimboo-boo!!!!!

      ".........always resented my A, especially when he got a B." 

      Good time, huh? One A out of all them other letters.  Hit the jackpot that one time anyway!!!! What system did you use?

      Been meaning to ask you, what scholarly journals do you read? I took the liberty of crossing the American Journal of Indian Education off my list, since you certainly didn't read that when posting your Base 20 system. Of course if you promise me you do, I'll add it back and just consider you missed that article. 

      "I do NOT want them to have FALSE HOPES, causing them to spend more than they can afford, often at the expense of their families. "

      Love your nobility! Need to work on a marketing campaign. T-shirts are always good.

      Imagine a shirt. The front says: What do you have with 12 chicken legs, a rump roast, 5 bananas, and two boxes of macaroni and cheese?

      Back says: A BOX HIT!

      Maybe we could sell advertising to eateries.

      Like the front of the shirt says: McDonald's WON'T (with the big golden arches across the midsection)

      Back says: Cash my lottery tickets!

      Jimboo, this would be a fun and exciting means to get your message out. Say the word Boo-boo and I'll start working on your Wikipedia bio. We'll need something for attention so, what's your understanding of the universe?

      Need eye-catching pictograph too. So how about you run all possible patterns for the Double Helix you are emotionally invested it and post it in Lucinda Console type to make sure it is perfectly aligned? Do the whole 33 year history of the Pennsylvania lottery! Mucho impressive!

      Tried to help you out with your most important project. Cartoon network still says it will take more than two signatures to get 'Huckleberry Hound' back in rotation. On the bright side they promise a special 'Spongebob Squarepants' with the mention of your name!

      Gotta go do super secret work on super secret lottery system! Maybe make super secret money tonight. Shhh! Don't tell.

        Avatar

        United States
        Member #105312
        January 29, 2011
        435 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 28, 2011, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

        Oh Joey!

        I was surprised when you mentioned trying to transfer your email address to RL-RANDOMLOGIC through the LP PM system.  My 2nd guess for what you're about here was writer/editor/advisor for poor RL.  It still is plausible, but it really doesn't matter.  You've made enough subtle attacks on me during your short tenure here that it's clear you definitely have a "problem" with Jimmy4164.   Regardless of your motives, you're not as astute as you think you are in your assessment of people, and I'm not going to help you understand why.

        Your esoteric, mystical, and prosaic approach to technical matters and dismissal of the traditional approaches which employ the scientific method and build on earlier knowledge and discoveries embarrassingly call into question your credibility.  And your attempts to denigrate me may endear you to some, but not all of the readers here.

        You confusingly said,"There is nothing in your history of posts I've bothered to read suggesting you see yourself as not already having a thorough understanding of everything involving lotteries."

        You really like double negatives don't you?  The knowledge required to understand lotteries relative to most scientific areas is trivial.  You may wear the crown. 

        When you go on about the reasons people study lotteries and add "...for some other reason including mine," I'm prompted to ask, JUST WHAT IS YOUR REASON?  You've alluded to an unspoken agenda, but nowhere have I found it.  My agenda is clear, and was stated in my early posts.  I think it is good for people to play the lotteries for entertainment, and to the extent they can afford it, risk some of their money on the chance of winning a jackpot.  I do NOT want them to have FALSE HOPES, causing them to spend more than they can afford, often at the expense of their families.  Other than to try to discredit what I say here, WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?

        Regardless of your answers to these questions, you will have no credibility in my mind, and to other's I'm aware of here, until you seriously address the legitimate questions prompted by your prose.  A good start would be to clarify which TX Lottery results you REALLY believe are somehow related to a Double Helix.

        When you come up with "a better understanding of the universe" I really think you should present it to not one, but several scholarly journals for review.  If you discover the Holy Grail of lottery systems in the process, perhaps you can incorporate the two.  Be careful submitting to Wikipedia; they're known for being pretty tough on people with "alternative" scientific theories.

        Your summary of me, one made after such a short acquaintance, bears repeating.

        "That is a human tragedy.  Somewhere under all those layers of concrete and armor there's probably still a seed of the original intelligence that produced the demon in the form of an A on a grade sheet."

        My oh my Joey!  For someone who has admittedly found little reason to read most of my posts, you reveal such angst that I worry what the future holds for you!  Maybe you're the Joey I remember who always resented my A, especially when he got a B.

        Now, perhaps you can dazzle us with expressions of your seeds of "original intelligence," the ones I'm sure you're sure you possess in abundance.

        --Jimmy4164

        I apologize for triggering this round of hysteria, Jimmie.

        I apologize for it to you, and to anyone who clicks in to read this thread.

        Have some fun.

          mayhem's avatar - 142g5yd
          Fort Worth, TX
          United States
          Member #106060
          February 11, 2011
          188 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 28, 2011, 3:07 pm - IP Logged

          Luck does not exist. Talk of luck in a mathematics forum? Everything is cause and effect. Nothing more, nothing less. Thier are no infallible systems. So what. There are plenty of imperfect strategies that people use to make money beyond what QPs would generate. At least for pick 3. Isn't that enough?

          How you do anything is how you do everything.

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7318 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 28, 2011, 3:37 pm - IP Logged

            "The ultimate judge on whether or not your system is successful is yourself."

            I don't think that is correct.   Winning one time regardless of the size of the win doesn't mean anything. 

            If a person plays QPs, he can only win with a quick pick.  Most people equate QPs with luck.  So, people that win using QPs are lucky if they cash a ticket.  If a person plays with a system, they can't tell if the system worked or if it was just luck.  In fact if they only win once, it is more probable that it was luck and not the system.

            They may not care to prove it to someone, that is irrelevant.  They may not need to continue playing, that is irrelevant.  They got the benefit but that also doesn't mean it was the system that worked. 

            You might believe your system won but you'd be lying to yourself (and others) if you claimed your system worked with only one win.  You can't be the ultimate judge by just believing.  Just believing means nothing.   It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established.  You can't claim it is a system unless it is repeatable by others as well as yourself.  Does not mean you are forced to give it to others but it has to meet those criteria.

            "It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established."

            We can play a 2 if 5 wheel in any PB or MM drawing using all the numbers and include each of the bonus numbers once and get a 100% repeat rate. The problem is the payoffs will probably be much less than we spent on the tickets. Is a system by your definition that always works, but loses money in the long run better than a method that is designed to and does hit the jackpot once?

            Why would it be necessary for a method of play to win at least two multi-million dollar jackpots to prove it is a system or a success?


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 28, 2011, 5:57 pm - IP Logged

              "It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established."

              We can play a 2 if 5 wheel in any PB or MM drawing using all the numbers and include each of the bonus numbers once and get a 100% repeat rate. The problem is the payoffs will probably be much less than we spent on the tickets. Is a system by your definition that always works, but loses money in the long run better than a method that is designed to and does hit the jackpot once?

              Why would it be necessary for a method of play to win at least two multi-million dollar jackpots to prove it is a system or a success?

              "Why would it be necessary for a method of play to win at least two multi-million dollar jackpots to prove it is a system or a success?"

              That isn't what he said.  You could potentially wait a VERY VERY LONG TIME waiting to hit 2 Powerball Jackpots!  Remember, the claims that have been made repeatedly here are that systems exist that can turn a profit WITHOUT the benefit of a Jackpot.  There is even one system purported to win secondary prizes at a rate eleven (11) times what chance predicts!  What you CAN do to decide whether you've got a winning system or not is to see how well it does when compared to what's expected from winning secondary prizes.  Since PB and MM are under discussion here, why not look at what's expected in the PB by looking at the calculations at the end of the summary pointed to by this link.  I know you believe such stats are "useless," but maybe when you see that they can help you out in this case, you might rethink your belief.

              http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222395/1899924

              Hint:  To break even in the Powerball, without a Jackpot, you must (see the table) win secondary prizes at a rate ( 1.0 / 0.174 ) or approximately 5.75 times BETTER than QuickPick players do!

              Can you do that?

                OldSchoolPa's avatar - Lottery-057.jpg
                Gurnee, Illinois
                United States
                Member #49731
                February 12, 2007
                917 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 28, 2011, 6:08 pm - IP Logged

                I'll probably get my membership revoked for saying this, but here goes.....I don't believe there is any such thing as a "successful" lottery playing system.  If that were the case, the majority of winners would be those who employed lottery systems and not the lucky individuals and pools that just happened to buy a number or even just one quick pick or randomly selected numbers.  I think to believe there is a way an individual can pick the numbers drawn is simply wishful thinking and a complete waste of time.  I prefer to just go in and buy a $5 QP and if I feel a certain fancy for a set of given numbers, I might play those as well.  But give me a break about lottery systems....you only win 1) if you bought a ticket for that drawing and 2) dumb luck strikes and those numbers you bought are the same ones drawn.

                Get MONEY!!! Winning a JACKPOT lottery is all the HOPE and CHANGE I desire!!!  NOW give me MONEY!US Flag

                The guy who won the presidency in 2008 really won the lottery...he is now millions richer, travels in first class style, and even has a staff that would be the envy of the richest Powerball winner (she has a staff of 2). Every night he goes to sleep, he probably plays the close of Dave Chappelle's Show: I'm rich beyatch!

                  garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                  Dallas, Texas
                  United States
                  Member #4549
                  May 2, 2004
                  1730 Posts
                  Online
                  Posted: March 28, 2011, 6:58 pm - IP Logged

                  "Why would it be necessary for a method of play to win at least two multi-million dollar jackpots to prove it is a system or a success?"

                  That isn't what he said.  You could potentially wait a VERY VERY LONG TIME waiting to hit 2 Powerball Jackpots!  Remember, the claims that have been made repeatedly here are that systems exist that can turn a profit WITHOUT the benefit of a Jackpot.  There is even one system purported to win secondary prizes at a rate eleven (11) times what chance predicts!  What you CAN do to decide whether you've got a winning system or not is to see how well it does when compared to what's expected from winning secondary prizes.  Since PB and MM are under discussion here, why not look at what's expected in the PB by looking at the calculations at the end of the summary pointed to by this link.  I know you believe such stats are "useless," but maybe when you see that they can help you out in this case, you might rethink your belief.

                  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222395/1899924

                  Hint:  To break even in the Powerball, without a Jackpot, you must (see the table) win secondary prizes at a rate ( 1.0 / 0.174 ) or approximately 5.75 times BETTER than QuickPick players do!

                  Can you do that?

                  Jimboo-boo!!!!!!

                  What is it with you an QPs? Breathe deep here, and define what you are talking about. Are you referring to QPs as the machine generated numbers for single draw, or any random set of numbers in general?

                  Oh, and Joan Ginter might have problems with your math. Fact: Joan blew up all your math. Her beating the odds was quoted at 1 in 18 septillion. It looks like this:

                  1 in 18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

                  In case you don't know Joan Ginter, she received her doctorate from Stanford in 1976, spent some time on faculty at several colleges in California, before winning 4 Texas Lottery Jackpots for $21 million.

                  Good luck finding out how she did it, or how much she spent, or what her system is, was, or will be. She's not talking. About all we know is she drives a Nissan sedan, doesn't own a cellphone, and wins money playing the lottery!

                  She also taught math and, logically, isn't drinking Jimmy's Magic Ju-Ju. (Might consider selling it as a good fish scent)


                    MzDuffleBaglady's avatar - Lottery-018.jpg

                    United States
                    Member #81314
                    October 16, 2009
                    18997 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 28, 2011, 7:07 pm - IP Logged

                    Lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo@ this thread.

                     

                    It took my mind off playing, 238 and 338 was the winning number.

                     

                     

                    I love Quick Picks, lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

                    The Struggle is real!

                      Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                      Zeta Reticuli Star System
                      United States
                      Member #30470
                      January 17, 2006
                      10353 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 28, 2011, 7:18 pm - IP Logged

                      Luck does not exist. Talk of luck in a mathematics forum? Everything is cause and effect. Nothing more, nothing less. Thier are no infallible systems. So what. There are plenty of imperfect strategies that people use to make money beyond what QPs would generate. At least for pick 3. Isn't that enough?

                      From the book Infinite Financial Freedom, What To do Before And After You Win The Lottery, by Bob Sanford:

                      Some of the more unusual ways that multi-million dollar winners have picked their winning numbers:

                      A dart board's numbers hit by throwing darts

                      A camera's serial number

                      The serial number from a Social Security check.

                      The lot number on a box of doughnuts bought while waiting in line to buy the winning ticket.

                      So if those things were not "luck", what's your explanation?

                      Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                      Lep

                      There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

                        truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
                        Michigan
                        United States
                        Member #22395
                        September 24, 2005
                        1583 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 28, 2011, 7:39 pm - IP Logged

                        "In fact if they only win once, it is more probable that it was luck and not the system."

                        The fact of the matter is, the source from which a win was generated will never be just from luck, or just from your system. The two will always play a role no matter how good your system is. No system can predict the results of every drawing. Luck will always play a major role in the lottery.

                         

                        "It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established."


                        There are 2 problems with that statement:

                        1. A system doesn't have to be repeatable to be considered a system. A system should be compared to that of a tactic. Just because you're using the same tactic, and just because it's ineffective, doesn't mean that it isn't a tactic. It still is in fact a tactic. Same thing with a system. Now, determining whether or not the system is successful or not is an issue in and of itself.

                        2. There are no universal definitions or standards. And it doesn't have to work for others. If it works for me, that's all I care about. This is the lottery. I'm not out to win some big popularity contest. Now I might share my system, but I'm not going to guarantee that it will work for you. And if it doesn't work for you, I'm still going to consider it a system. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me how often my system should hit X prize. Nobody has the right to specify a timeframe to another person. So that means there's only one timeframe - indefinite. It might be a month, it might be a year, 10 years, 100 years, a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care.

                        "2. There are no universal definitions or standards. And it doesn't have to work for others. If it works for me, that's all I care about."

                        Well, I didn't? invent the word system, so I am sure there is a definition.  You can alter it and bend it in your own mind, invent your own terms and do anything you want.   That won't make it a recognized system.   I have yet to see an industry without standards.  Think you can just slap 4 wheels on a wooden box and call it an automobile because you think it is an automobile?  There are generally accepted rules for what is called a gambling system and your ideas don't even come close. 

                        "Nobody has the right to specify a timeframe to another person.?"

                        I think that happens every day of the week and there isn't much you can do to reverse it.  I can think of one instance immediately: Judge says, Guilty! Robbery. 3 to 5 years!? And he is recognized as having the right to specify that time length for the sentence.

                        "I'm still going to consider it a system."

                        Please do not stomp your feet on the floor and cry.  Go ahead and good luck with your 100 years, a million, a billion year "system."

                          RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                          United States
                          Member #59354
                          March 13, 2008
                          3983 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 28, 2011, 8:07 pm - IP Logged

                          Well, then you agree with me.  That's basically what I said to Guru101.

                          The only thing is, I would say you do not have a system.

                          You have a methodology.

                          A system follows rules 1,2,3.  Rules that anyone can follow and obtain the same results as you do.  Rules that dictate exactly what to do and exactly how many tickets to purchase.

                          You have a combination of rules and the other part where you make some kind of choice of which numbers to play and how many tickets to purchase.  And that is the difference between a system and a methodology.

                          truecritic

                          My software is a system and anyone who inputs the same data will receive the exact same output

                          which can also be be done using a pen and paper.  The choices one must make are not part of the 

                          system.  The basic rules are the same for every game.  Since the draws follow the matrix it only makes

                          sense that the matrix should be used as a guide.  If 40% of the sets in the matrix have six total digits

                          then 40% of the draws will have six digits.  Selecting six digits from a pool of 10 is much easier then 

                          selecting 5 numbers from 39.  If 33% of the sets in the matrix have two digit 1's then 33% of the draws

                          will have two digit 1's.  That is the digit system.  Why play a set of numbers that has only 2 digits that

                          make up the entire set of five numbers as in the set 01-11-12-21-22 when only  18 out of the 575757

                          sets have only two digits.  While it is true that every number has the same odds of being drawn the

                          digits do not.  I choose to play on the days that I think that the set will include 5 or 6 digits.  How, when

                          and what I play is not part of the system but my personal choices based on how I interpet the data which

                          is something that I have given a few pointers but will not reveal.  Not so much that I am holding back it

                          is just that every game will have it's own dips and sways and if you try to use my logic for your game then

                          it's not going to work.  No system will ever be invented where you can pust a button and it spits out the

                          winning set and no one will ever come up with a single set of rules that will work for every game, can't be

                          done.  If someone tries to tell you they can then don't believe it for a second. 

                          I hope this clears things up.

                          RL

                            Guru101's avatar - rw6jhh
                            Indiana
                            United States
                            Member #48725
                            January 7, 2007
                            1954 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 28, 2011, 8:08 pm - IP Logged

                            "2. There are no universal definitions or standards. And it doesn't have to work for others. If it works for me, that's all I care about."

                            Well, I didn't? invent the word system, so I am sure there is a definition.  You can alter it and bend it in your own mind, invent your own terms and do anything you want.   That won't make it a recognized system.   I have yet to see an industry without standards.  Think you can just slap 4 wheels on a wooden box and call it an automobile because you think it is an automobile?  There are generally accepted rules for what is called a gambling system and your ideas don't even come close. 

                            "Nobody has the right to specify a timeframe to another person.?"

                            I think that happens every day of the week and there isn't much you can do to reverse it.  I can think of one instance immediately: Judge says, Guilty! Robbery. 3 to 5 years!? And he is recognized as having the right to specify that time length for the sentence.

                            "I'm still going to consider it a system."

                            Please do not stomp your feet on the floor and cry.  Go ahead and good luck with your 100 years, a million, a billion year "system."

                            "That won't make it a recognized system.?"

                            It doesn't matter if it's recognized or not. The goal is to make money. If I used a system for 3 years and was able to win a jackpot 5 times, and then I shared it with a bunch of people, and none of them was able to win even one time, any complaints from them would be completely meaningless.

                            "I think that happens every day of the week and there isn't much you can do to reverse it.  I can think of one instance immediately: Judge says, Guilty! Robbery. 3 to 5 years!? And he is recognized as having the right to specify that time length for the sentence.?"

                            You've taken what I said out of context. The context is lottery systems. In layman's terms, what I was saying is that you nor anybody else can say to me "Your system must win the jackpot at least once every X days/weeks/years". What you think doesn't matter when it comes to my system because the person I want it to benefit is me. It doesn't matter if it benefits you or not.

                            Gonna win.Big Smile

                              truecritic's avatar - PirateTreasure
                              Michigan
                              United States
                              Member #22395
                              September 24, 2005
                              1583 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 28, 2011, 8:22 pm - IP Logged

                              "It has to be repeatable, or it isn't a system, by definition and by standards already established."

                              We can play a 2 if 5 wheel in any PB or MM drawing using all the numbers and include each of the bonus numbers once and get a 100% repeat rate. The problem is the payoffs will probably be much less than we spent on the tickets. Is a system by your definition that always works, but loses money in the long run better than a method that is designed to and does hit the jackpot once?

                              Why would it be necessary for a method of play to win at least two multi-million dollar jackpots to prove it is a system or a success?

                              "Is a system by your definition that always works, but loses money in the long run better than a method that is designed to and does hit the jackpot once?"

                              If by design you CAN make up a system (a set of rules) that will hit the lottery once and say so and proceed to do just that, I would concede it is a winning system.   (Or the reverse, invent a system and say it will lose.  It would still be a system albeit a bad system.) 

                              Like going to the moon, perhaps the moon was exactly a certain distance from the earth and all the rules and math were geared to those figures - those particular system calculations may work only once in a lifetime.  If you can come up with something like that and declare you will win MM on this coming Friday and do so, then I will concede you indeed have a winning system.   The repeatability part is that anyone using the same set of rules can accomplish exactly what you accomplish.  Instead of the word repeatability, use the word duplicate to mean the same thing.

                              However, I believe you don't have to show a profit to be using a system.  There are certainly good systems and bad systems - profit is a separate issue.  Yes, your 2 if 5 wheel is a system.  The numbers you play can be equal to any quick pick, no better and certainly no worse.  That "system" would require quite a bit of luck in conjunction with the system portion - still, nonetheless a system.

                              Please note, I did not say that it was better than a system designed for one jackpot.  Given the two choices you outlined, both guaranteed to perform as stated, the obvious choice is a jackpot.  But you have to deliver that hit!

                              What I am saying is, as in medicine, if you discover bacteria xxx and say it causes some disease - if the center for disease control cannot duplicate your findings.  If others cannot duplicate your findings - they are declared wrong/discredited etc;  So if you claim a winning system it has to be mechanical (that is to say, follow a set order of rules) and produce results you claim for anyone using it.   

                              As many on here posts "systems" (tic-tac-toe ad infinitum) they often leave out personal judgement - that is an item that cannot be repeated by others.  Therefore what they post is not a true system.  It is rather a methodology.

                                 
                                Page 9 of 62