Welcome Guest
You last visited January 21, 2017, 4:32 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Backtesting and Simulating Lottery Systems

Topic closed. 136 replies. Last post 6 years ago by RL-RANDOMLOGIC.

 Page 3 of 10
Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 1:48 am - IP Logged

RL

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 11:29 am - IP Logged

Jimmy

You really do have a reading impairment don't you.  Have you downloaded the video and watched it?  I look

for data that I see as showing a good chance for a hit.  When I find conflicting data I can allow one or both

to hit or miss.  Lets say that I have 5 strong digits but see 2 others that could show in the next draw. I can

set them so that only one of them can hit within a set or both. I can set them to hit a maximun of once, twice

or any amount for that matter.  I don't say that 5 digits will hit at the start.  I choose the digits one at a time

and If I end up with 5 then I end up with 5.  I may add a couple wild cards so to speak but I place limits on them

If I end up with seven then I will play 7 but I have another analysis that I can do to see what the odds for 7 digit

set is. If I see that 7 should not hit then I might take the two digits with the lowest  chance of hitting and set them

to hit or miss but if they hit then they can only show once per set.  This then gives me a range of 5 to 7 or 5 to 6

digit in play.  I can control each digits count for every set that is produced.   Most all my filters are digit related and

I calculate them thinking of the digits that are in play.  If I select the correct digits then the software will produce

the exact winning set every time it is ran.  Unless you can determind how I select the digits then you cannot do a

backtest unless you want to just make a guess.  Since the software is mechanical in what it does and uses a numerical

set generator that goes through every set in the matrix each run then there is nothing to test unless you are looking

for errors in the code.  How and what I select is based on so many bits of data that are calculated differently for each

draw and I may use different data for the same selection from draw to draw.  Unless you are willing to spend the rest

of your life trying to code how I make decisions then your wasting time asking it.  If it could be coded then I would have

done it.  If you think you could do this with a simple program like you used in the P-3 analysis you nuts.  I could code a

program to make those simple calculations in less then a hour and probably in less then 10 minuets. One of the guys

hit a 4 of 5 a week or so back. I don't keep in touch with all of them but they do contact me from time to time and let me

know how they are doing or maybe bragg a little. I take them at their word because they have nothing to gain. Many

use the program along with other software.  DM has the ability to import sets from another program which can then be

filtered using digits or the other filters.

RL

"How and what I select is based on so many bits of data that are calculated differently for each draw and I may use different data for the same selection from draw to draw.  Unless you are willing to spend the rest of your life trying to code how I make decisions then your wasting time asking it.  If it could be coded then I would have done it."

That's a shame.  If we could have gotten Bluejay to include lottery systems in his challenge, you would have been a shoe-in for the \$30K.

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html

--Jimmy4164

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1841 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 11:54 am - IP Logged

CORRECTION!

I reversed my YES and NO below.  Sorry.

----------Corrected Post----------------

You're forgetting, you gave your software away to 40 disciples.

Aren't they up to speed yet?

BTW, based on an earlier remark of yours, you seem to be saying that after throwing out all the sets that don't have 5 or 6 unique digits, without further filtering, you would be forced to bet on all the thousands remaining.

So, are you then telling us that if one were to run a simulation that randomly generated (5,39) sets, rejecting all but 10 containing 5 or 6 unique digits, and playing them against the daily draw, that the result would NOT be any better than simply betting on the first 10 random sets produced? (QPs)

If your answer is YES, then I must assume this filter is of no value.

If your answer is NO, I must ask why you would not support a simple backtest of this one component of your method.

Jimboo-boo!!!!!

Thought you resolved this on page 1 when you said, "Anyone who would accept the results of a Mone Carlo Simulation didn't need to see it in the first place, and all those who need to see the results, would not accept them!"

This is no time to get all fuzzy and warm and waffly. Either you don't need to see the results, or you would not accept the results once you see them.

The baquette that caused your train wreck came after you made the grandiose proclamation, "I was planning to back-test and/or simulate ONE component of the "Digit System," namely the first filter applied which rejects all sets from the (5,39) matrix that have less than 5 or more than 6 unique numbers."

When a couple of members showed specific state breakdowns of your proposed idea you went into piranha mode realizing yours was not a new jello pudding pop flavor. Yet, at the times of those posting it was clear that you were not planning on producing any source code, simulated data, or any content consistent with the title of your own thread, as is your norm.

Is RL the word for 'attack' in your vocabulary?

Now, here's the real joke in all this, so get your pencil and paper out and add this up.

1) You profess a strong belief in simulations and back-testing.

2) RL has posted the results showing his certain filtering techniques produced winning combinations.

3) At this point you reverse direction claiming it is farcical to produce winning combinations after the draw.

So from this, are we to infer that:

1) Backtesting for improvement in one's methods is not allowed in Jimboo-boo's universe?

2) Or, any backtesting that can't be controlled and programmed into a strict set of rules by Jimboo-boo will not be tolerated or accepted?

In either case, it seems you are right on page 1.

Either you don't need to see the results, or seeing the results you will not accept them.

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4088 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 2:12 pm - IP Logged

RL

TC

I just made a new video but it ended up being 77mb which was too large to upload to my basic BoxNet

account.  I can email it to you if you want it.  It is just a basic after the fact setup that shows a few of

the tools and settings I would use.  I first set the digits for an exact 1 to 1 hit/rate and run and get 5

lines without filters.  I then set a hi/low range and rerun and get 90 then I range the first postion and

drop it down to 40 or so, I then use DO filter and reduce it again.  The first run is the one i try for as it

only requires 5 choices from the control bars to reduce to 5 lines.  The setup was for last nights draw.

77mb will most likely be hard to get to go through as a email attachment but if you want it I will try.

RL

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 2:24 pm - IP Logged

Jimboo-boo!!!!!

Thought you resolved this on page 1 when you said, "Anyone who would accept the results of a Mone Carlo Simulation didn't need to see it in the first place, and all those who need to see the results, would not accept them!"

This is no time to get all fuzzy and warm and waffly. Either you don't need to see the results, or you would not accept the results once you see them.

The baquette that caused your train wreck came after you made the grandiose proclamation, "I was planning to back-test and/or simulate ONE component of the "Digit System," namely the first filter applied which rejects all sets from the (5,39) matrix that have less than 5 or more than 6 unique numbers."

When a couple of members showed specific state breakdowns of your proposed idea you went into piranha mode realizing yours was not a new jello pudding pop flavor. Yet, at the times of those posting it was clear that you were not planning on producing any source code, simulated data, or any content consistent with the title of your own thread, as is your norm.

Is RL the word for 'attack' in your vocabulary?

Now, here's the real joke in all this, so get your pencil and paper out and add this up.

1) You profess a strong belief in simulations and back-testing.

2) RL has posted the results showing his certain filtering techniques produced winning combinations.

3) At this point you reverse direction claiming it is farcical to produce winning combinations after the draw.

So from this, are we to infer that:

1) Backtesting for improvement in one's methods is not allowed in Jimboo-boo's universe?

2) Or, any backtesting that can't be controlled and programmed into a strict set of rules by Jimboo-boo will not be tolerated or accepted?

In either case, it seems you are right on page 1.

Either you don't need to see the results, or seeing the results you will not accept them.

"Either you don't need to see the results, or seeing the results you will not accept them."

You're not paying attention. I know what the results are without writing the simulation!  I was willing to write a simple one if it looked like it might help a few people understand these issues better, but based on the response thus far, that was wishful thinking on my part.

By offering up another garrulous description of the long suffering and wearisome machinations of his selection process above, RL-RANDOMLOGIC made his best effort yet to keep just enough smoke and mirror positioning in play that many of his fans will not notice that he answered my question with a YES, confirming that his primary filter is of no value on its own.  This is precisely what a simulation would show.

With these facts in mind, [if you could,] would YOU take the time to code a simulation and post it for free?

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  Just what is YOUR goal here, as you invest time and energy to thwart the efforts of a person trying to shed light on lottery systems using the scientific method?  Are you paid by the hour, by the post, or will you be satisfied with a reward in heaven, or, as the case may be, in a warmer place?

P.S.S. @JosephusMinimus:  Ibid.

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103046
December 29, 2010
546 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 3:33 pm - IP Logged

"You can't get there from here; you have to start from somewhere else."

I always try to get there from where I am rather than from somewhere else, it's easier.

I don't mind trying to get there from somewhere else, as long as that's where I'm at when I start out.

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1841 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 4:49 pm - IP Logged

"Either you don't need to see the results, or seeing the results you will not accept them."

You're not paying attention. I know what the results are without writing the simulation!  I was willing to write a simple one if it looked like it might help a few people understand these issues better, but based on the response thus far, that was wishful thinking on my part.

By offering up another garrulous description of the long suffering and wearisome machinations of his selection process above, RL-RANDOMLOGIC made his best effort yet to keep just enough smoke and mirror positioning in play that many of his fans will not notice that he answered my question with a YES, confirming that his primary filter is of no value on its own.  This is precisely what a simulation would show.

With these facts in mind, [if you could,] would YOU take the time to code a simulation and post it for free?

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  Just what is YOUR goal here, as you invest time and energy to thwart the efforts of a person trying to shed light on lottery systems using the scientific method?  Are you paid by the hour, by the post, or will you be satisfied with a reward in heaven, or, as the case may be, in a warmer place?

P.S.S. @JosephusMinimus:  Ibid.

Jimboo-boo!!!!!

It appears I may one of the few who  ARE paying attention. You say you "know the results without writing the simulation."

Then why not post the results without all the fancy breakdance moves? (If your Magic Ju-Ju is this good, we don't need a system. You can tell us what numbers will hit and we can all share the jackpot.)

YES, I noticed RL said YES, and I agree with the part that says 'no value on its own.' Did you pay attention to that? That is a very important point. Depending on what has occurred in a past given number of draws, it remains a starting point, but looking at the given number of draws, it should/could be adjusted as any other filter in any program.

I do not agree with what a simulation would show. Until someone (maybe Monty Hall) produces a 'true' AI capable of producing unique thought, the best anyone could do is have a software checklist that may, or may not, 'decide' to continue, or change, the value for individual digits. It may, or may not, make the same decisions a person, given the exact conditions might. Of course the introduction of random sprites might be fun, but you have to solve the trigger.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that I, nor anyone else, can program a simulation so complex that it would recognize distinct patterns, trends, or subtle information the brain could latch on to and utilize. Simply defining every variable and condition would be an exercise in futility. You have my sympathy if you wish to try.

If you started this thread with the present intent, i.e., to shed light on backtesting RL's system, then why not say it? Such an idea as "Testing RL's Digit System" would have been much more conducive to the heart of the matter than dance steping in with the promise of posting simulations, source code, and then retracting those promises halfway down PAGE 1. You do that a lot.

Not all of us that come here have goal, a defined agenda, or a hidden purpose. The majority come here looking for information on HOW to win a jackpot. Many of us come here with the expectation of meeting creative, forward thinking people and exchanging ideas. These may be foreign ideas to you. Still......

Is RL the word for 'attack' in your vocabulary?

Now, here's the real joke in all this, so get your pencil and paper out and add this up.

1) You profess a strong belief in simulations and back-testing.

2) RL has posted the results showing his certain filtering techniques produced winning combinations.

3) At this point you reverse direction claiming it is farcical to produce winning combinations after the draw.

So from this, are we to infer that:

1) Backtesting for improvement in one's methods is not allowed in Jimboo-boo's universe?

2) Or, any backtesting that can't be controlled and programmed into a strict set of rules by Jimboo-boo will not be tolerated or accepted?

In either case, it seems you are right on page 1.

Either you don't need to see the results, or seeing the results you will not accept them.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 6:07 pm - IP Logged

Jimboo-boo!!!!!

It appears I may one of the few who  ARE paying attention. You say you "know the results without writing the simulation."

Then why not post the results without all the fancy breakdance moves? (If your Magic Ju-Ju is this good, we don't need a system. You can tell us what numbers will hit and we can all share the jackpot.)

YES, I noticed RL said YES, and I agree with the part that says 'no value on its own.' Did you pay attention to that? That is a very important point. Depending on what has occurred in a past given number of draws, it remains a starting point, but looking at the given number of draws, it should/could be adjusted as any other filter in any program.

I do not agree with what a simulation would show. Until someone (maybe Monty Hall) produces a 'true' AI capable of producing unique thought, the best anyone could do is have a software checklist that may, or may not, 'decide' to continue, or change, the value for individual digits. It may, or may not, make the same decisions a person, given the exact conditions might. Of course the introduction of random sprites might be fun, but you have to solve the trigger.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that I, nor anyone else, can program a simulation so complex that it would recognize distinct patterns, trends, or subtle information the brain could latch on to and utilize. Simply defining every variable and condition would be an exercise in futility. You have my sympathy if you wish to try.

If you started this thread with the present intent, i.e., to shed light on backtesting RL's system, then why not say it? Such an idea as "Testing RL's Digit System" would have been much more conducive to the heart of the matter than dance steping in with the promise of posting simulations, source code, and then retracting those promises halfway down PAGE 1. You do that a lot.

Not all of us that come here have goal, a defined agenda, or a hidden purpose. The majority come here looking for information on HOW to win a jackpot. Many of us come here with the expectation of meeting creative, forward thinking people and exchanging ideas. These may be foreign ideas to you. Still......

Is RL the word for 'attack' in your vocabulary?

Now, here's the real joke in all this, so get your pencil and paper out and add this up.

1) You profess a strong belief in simulations and back-testing.

2) RL has posted the results showing his certain filtering techniques produced winning combinations.

3) At this point you reverse direction claiming it is farcical to produce winning combinations after the draw.

So from this, are we to infer that:

1) Backtesting for improvement in one's methods is not allowed in Jimboo-boo's universe?

2) Or, any backtesting that can't be controlled and programmed into a strict set of rules by Jimboo-boo will not be tolerated or accepted?

In either case, it seems you are right on page 1.

Either you don't need to see the results, or seeing the results you will not accept them.

(All those reading here for entertainment, with no interest or backbone to post your opinions, take note:  I'm about done writing to entertain you with no recompense.  Some of those posting, shills, clowns, and their hairdressers, may be rewarded in some way, but unless some of the silent readers give me a reason to continue, these Mathematics and System Threads will soon be left to those with a vested interest in your continuing ignorance!)

-----------------garyo1954--says--------------------

"Then why not post the results without all the fancy breakdance moves? (If your Magic Ju-Ju is this good, we don't need a system. You can tell us what numbers will hit and we can all share the jackpot.)

YES, I noticed RL said YES, and I agree with the part that says 'no value on its own.' Did you pay attention to that? That is a very important point. Depending on what has occurred in a past given number of draws, it remains a starting point, but looking at the given number of draws, it should/could be adjusted as any other filter in any program."

-------------End of garyo1954 Quote---------------

Back on October 8, 2010, RL-RANDOMLOGIC, after a brief hiatus, enlightened us with the following:

"You see this whole system is based on the number of digits that make up any given set

5-39 total universe of sets

7290     of 575757 have 8 different digits or  .01266

82740   of  575757 have 7 different digits or .14371

229473 of 575757 have 6 different digits  or .39856

199500 of 575757 have 5 different digits  or .34650

53364   of 575757 have 4 different digits  or .09268

3372     of 575757 have 3 different digits  or .00586

18         of 575757 have 2 different digits  or .00003

Actual sets drawn

5    of 760 have 8 different digits or  .00658

117 of 760 have 7 different digits or  .15395

291 of 760 have 6 different digits or  .38289

267 of 760 have 5 different digits or  .35132

76   of 760 have 4 different digits or  .1

4     of 760 have 3 different digits or  .00526

0     of 760 have 2 different digits or  .0

Notice how close the drawings mimic the universe,  I tell people to play sets that have 5 and 6 total digits because they will have a chance of winning 7.4 drawings out of 10.

Now if they play one set with 2 and one set with 3 and one set with 4 and one set with 7 and one set with 8 then they could expect to have a chance of winning only 2.7 draws in every 10.    In other words, playing any sets with less then 5 and greater then 6 digits have no chance of winning 7.4 of every 10 drawings on average.

You think that I suffer from gamblers fallacy because I think that what has been drawn is somehow related to what will be drawn.  This is your fallacy, The drawings will always follow the matrix.  Ball drop, RNG does not matter..."

--------End of Quote------------

WHAT?

Well, garyo1954, when I read your interpretation above of RL's CURRENT position vis-a-vis his primary filter, I can't help but ask:

Who Is Dancing?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4088 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 6:17 pm - IP Logged

TC

I just made a new video but it ended up being 77mb which was too large to upload to my basic BoxNet

account.  I can email it to you if you want it.  It is just a basic after the fact setup that shows a few of

the tools and settings I would use.  I first set the digits for an exact 1 to 1 hit/rate and run and get 5

lines without filters.  I then set a hi/low range and rerun and get 90 then I range the first postion and

drop it down to 40 or so, I then use DO filter and reduce it again.  The first run is the one i try for as it

only requires 5 choices from the control bars to reduce to 5 lines.  The setup was for last nights draw.

77mb will most likely be hard to get to go through as a email attachment but if you want it I will try.

RL

TC

Below is a link to a download zip file that shows 10 different setups that a person could use and still come

out ahead.  The first pic shows the best one could hope for and the rest are just some of the ways that one

could set the digits.  Only setup10.png uses any filters and the rest of the pics show unfiltered sets and the

total winners they would have produced.  Blocking a digit from hitting is almost as effective as setting one

to hit.  Many of the pics have incorrect digit selections but still produced several winning second level prizes.

Understanding how to minipulate outcomes based on digit selection is a must.  You still must make several

correct settings but you do not need to know them all.  The software I have allows one to easily do this.  Some

people like to use a shotgun blast to get as large of cover as they can but I like the Setup1.png approach.

If and when I start falling behind then I switch to playing for lower prizes which most of the pics show how

paste it in the address bar.

RL

http://www.box.net/shared/tgdgfjsxzk

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4088 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 7:47 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy

I don't see a problem here unless I take into consideration you inability to understand a few important facts.

I stand behind what I said but you must first relize that I was talking to many different people and some of them

are using pen and paper, some are using this as a filter, some are building there own version, some are using

my software.  To someone using pen and paper I might give one method and to a software user I give another.

The pen and paper users don't  have a database or the way to analyze it.   Many times 4 of the 5 numbers

come from as few as 3 digits. Hmmmmm.  Talking in terms of hitting jackpots vs playing to break even or make a

little extra takes a little different method.  Back before the digit system post was locked and Todd had to remove

several pages I gave many examples and also had to beat off a certain clowns from time to time.  I had a very

hard time trying to keep up with just the people that were really interested in the post and all the while keeping

the Clown from trashing what he is unable to understand.  I think that any member of LP that is interested in

seeking something that might help them select their numbers must think that you are nothing more then a troll

and an instigator who does not have a real life of his own, sad, very sad.   You claim to have the knowledge

of math that the rest of us lack but what I see looks more like a debate forum which plays on the wording of a

topic that was not intended to be consummatedm or looked upon as a mathematical law.   What I tell people are

suggestions based on my past experience.  Maybe if I had agreed to write the market software for you none of

this would be going on.  You know what they say about a womans scorn.

RL

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 9:10 pm - IP Logged

TC

I just made a new video but it ended up being 77mb which was too large to upload to my basic BoxNet

account.  I can email it to you if you want it.  It is just a basic after the fact setup that shows a few of

the tools and settings I would use.  I first set the digits for an exact 1 to 1 hit/rate and run and get 5

lines without filters.  I then set a hi/low range and rerun and get 90 then I range the first postion and

drop it down to 40 or so, I then use DO filter and reduce it again.  The first run is the one i try for as it

only requires 5 choices from the control bars to reduce to 5 lines.  The setup was for last nights draw.

77mb will most likely be hard to get to go through as a email attachment but if you want it I will try.

RL

77 MB is too large for emails.

I saw you uploaded pictures in a separate post, got them.  Haven't looked at them yet but did download them.

I'll email you some hosting sites that you might want to try.

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1841 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 11:47 pm - IP Logged

(All those reading here for entertainment, with no interest or backbone to post your opinions, take note:  I'm about done writing to entertain you with no recompense.  Some of those posting, shills, clowns, and their hairdressers, may be rewarded in some way, but unless some of the silent readers give me a reason to continue, these Mathematics and System Threads will soon be left to those with a vested interest in your continuing ignorance!)

-----------------garyo1954--says--------------------

"Then why not post the results without all the fancy breakdance moves? (If your Magic Ju-Ju is this good, we don't need a system. You can tell us what numbers will hit and we can all share the jackpot.)

YES, I noticed RL said YES, and I agree with the part that says 'no value on its own.' Did you pay attention to that? That is a very important point. Depending on what has occurred in a past given number of draws, it remains a starting point, but looking at the given number of draws, it should/could be adjusted as any other filter in any program."

-------------End of garyo1954 Quote---------------

Back on October 8, 2010, RL-RANDOMLOGIC, after a brief hiatus, enlightened us with the following:

"You see this whole system is based on the number of digits that make up any given set

5-39 total universe of sets

7290     of 575757 have 8 different digits or  .01266

82740   of  575757 have 7 different digits or .14371

229473 of 575757 have 6 different digits  or .39856

199500 of 575757 have 5 different digits  or .34650

53364   of 575757 have 4 different digits  or .09268

3372     of 575757 have 3 different digits  or .00586

18         of 575757 have 2 different digits  or .00003

Actual sets drawn

5    of 760 have 8 different digits or  .00658

117 of 760 have 7 different digits or  .15395

291 of 760 have 6 different digits or  .38289

267 of 760 have 5 different digits or  .35132

76   of 760 have 4 different digits or  .1

4     of 760 have 3 different digits or  .00526

0     of 760 have 2 different digits or  .0

Notice how close the drawings mimic the universe,  I tell people to play sets that have 5 and 6 total digits because they will have a chance of winning 7.4 drawings out of 10.

Now if they play one set with 2 and one set with 3 and one set with 4 and one set with 7 and one set with 8 then they could expect to have a chance of winning only 2.7 draws in every 10.    In other words, playing any sets with less then 5 and greater then 6 digits have no chance of winning 7.4 of every 10 drawings on average.

You think that I suffer from gamblers fallacy because I think that what has been drawn is somehow related to what will be drawn.  This is your fallacy, The drawings will always follow the matrix.  Ball drop, RNG does not matter..."

--------End of Quote------------

WHAT?

Well, garyo1954, when I read your interpretation above of RL's CURRENT position vis-a-vis his primary filter, I can't help but ask:

Who Is Dancing?

--Jimmy4164

Jimboo-boo!!!!!!!

Your pink tutu  goes with the clown shoes nicely but your Echappe needs much work. The good news is once you get your foot out of your mouth, you will find it easier to stand up. Don't get me wrong, laying on the ground, spinning, while holding your ankle is cool, but feel free to stop while I review.

You say you "know the results without writing the simulation."

Knowing this to be untrue, I asked, "Then why not post the results without all the fancy breakdance moves?"

Naturally, it was wishful thinking that you might pause your "Sesame Street," brought to you by the letter 'J,' and the number '4,' DVD long enough to put your big boy pants on and offer some honest excuse on why you started a thread with no intent to follow through.

I made note, "Until someone (maybe Monty Hall) produces a 'true' AI capable of producing unique thought, the best anyone could do is have a software checklist that may, or may not, 'decide' to continue, or change, the value for individual digits. It may, or may not, make the same decisions a person, given the exact conditions might. Of course the introduction of random sprites might be fun, but you have to solve the trigger."

Even if your 13 year old programmer is on strike,  the muppeteers should manage a single line of code between sing-a-long counting jingles before Season 3.

Think you can get off your back, get your foot out of your mouth, and help them?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 10, 2011, 1:36 am - IP Logged

Jimboo-boo!!!!!!!

Your pink tutu  goes with the clown shoes nicely but your Echappe needs much work. The good news is once you get your foot out of your mouth, you will find it easier to stand up. Don't get me wrong, laying on the ground, spinning, while holding your ankle is cool, but feel free to stop while I review.

You say you "know the results without writing the simulation."

Knowing this to be untrue, I asked, "Then why not post the results without all the fancy breakdance moves?"

Naturally, it was wishful thinking that you might pause your "Sesame Street," brought to you by the letter 'J,' and the number '4,' DVD long enough to put your big boy pants on and offer some honest excuse on why you started a thread with no intent to follow through.

I made note, "Until someone (maybe Monty Hall) produces a 'true' AI capable of producing unique thought, the best anyone could do is have a software checklist that may, or may not, 'decide' to continue, or change, the value for individual digits. It may, or may not, make the same decisions a person, given the exact conditions might. Of course the introduction of random sprites might be fun, but you have to solve the trigger."

Even if your 13 year old programmer is on strike,  the muppeteers should manage a single line of code between sing-a-long counting jingles before Season 3.

Think you can get off your back, get your foot out of your mouth, and help them?

gary,

Could you please be more specific?  Just what model would you like to see back-tested?  Since you and RL have made it clear the Digit System is unfathomable with a computer program, what would you like to see simulated?  Can you specify it according to Bluejay's guidelines?  As for that primary filter we discussed earlier, do you really need a simulation and its resulting output to demonstrate to you that accepting random betting sets for a (5,39) Lotto game only when their digit count is 5 or 6 will result in exactly the same losses over time as accepting all sets?  And since RL has NOW certified this to be true anyway, why would anyone bother?

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  So, how are you paid, by the hour, or the post? (Did you forget?)

Is there anyone out there with a true interest in learning about computer backtesting and simulating lottery systems?

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1841 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 10, 2011, 9:25 am - IP Logged

gary,

Could you please be more specific?  Just what model would you like to see back-tested?  Since you and RL have made it clear the Digit System is unfathomable with a computer program, what would you like to see simulated?  Can you specify it according to Bluejay's guidelines?  As for that primary filter we discussed earlier, do you really need a simulation and its resulting output to demonstrate to you that accepting random betting sets for a (5,39) Lotto game only when their digit count is 5 or 6 will result in exactly the same losses over time as accepting all sets?  And since RL has NOW certified this to be true anyway, why would anyone bother?

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  So, how are you paid, by the hour, or the post? (Did you forget?)

Is there anyone out there with a true interest in learning about computer backtesting and simulating lottery systems?

Jimboo-boo!!!!!

You are displaying the horrors of oldtimers with alzheimers. You start a thread and then you have nothing to say or offer. This is why your 'Kelly' thread is approaching 400 views with 1 reply. The one reply is you talking to yourself, which is another sign of mental instability. Same reason your caregiver only alllows you a plastic spoon to eat your jello. He knows you'd poke you eye out with a fork.

I'm being paid \$50 a page up to five pages as long as you waffle, obfuscate, and produce nothing on topic. I'll earn \$25 for every post I remind you of your failing. And there is an additional bonus for each time you beg for help, as you just did.

Don't be disappointed if I don't remember the Bluejay character. Sesame Street was never my thing.

BTW, I did notice you misspelled '.....with a true interest in teaching me about computer backtesting.'

Once you get the internet, you should google '101 Uses ALT/F4.' It won't help you with learning, but it will save the rest of the world a lot of time.

Michigan
United States
Member #22395
September 24, 2005
1583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 10, 2011, 12:35 pm - IP Logged

Jimboo-boo!!!!!

You are displaying the horrors of oldtimers with alzheimers. You start a thread and then you have nothing to say or offer. This is why your 'Kelly' thread is approaching 400 views with 1 reply. The one reply is you talking to yourself, which is another sign of mental instability. Same reason your caregiver only alllows you a plastic spoon to eat your jello. He knows you'd poke you eye out with a fork.

I'm being paid \$50 a page up to five pages as long as you waffle, obfuscate, and produce nothing on topic. I'll earn \$25 for every post I remind you of your failing. And there is an additional bonus for each time you beg for help, as you just did.

Don't be disappointed if I don't remember the Bluejay character. Sesame Street was never my thing.

BTW, I did notice you misspelled '.....with a true interest in teaching me about computer backtesting.'

Once you get the internet, you should google '101 Uses ALT/F4.' It won't help you with learning, but it will save the rest of the world a lot of time.