Backtesting and Simulating Lottery SystemsPrev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

mayhem

Fort Worth, TX
United States
Member #106,055
February 11, 2011
188 Posts
Offline

Apr 10, 2011, 8:57 pm

This all could be faked. Not accusing you, but I'm just saying.

I hope its real though. If it is, your on to something. But doesn't something need to happen a few times predictably to have credibility?

How you do anything is how you do everything.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 10, 2011, 9:00 pm

ameriken

Jimmy is the LP self appointed cop and his mission is to protect us from people trying to make a buck

or two off people who can't do math. I think that if RP does something that Todd feels is inappropriate

then Todd will take care of it. LP was here and done just fine before jimbo ever showed up and Todd

is the reason. I don't know Robert Perkins and never read his post but I don't need jimmy telling me

what to do either.

RL
jimmy4164

United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline

Apr 10, 2011, 9:21 pm

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Apr 10, 2011
ameriken

Jimmy is the LP self appointed cop and his mission is to protect us from people trying to make a buck

or two off people who can't do math. I think that if RP does something that Todd feels is inappropriate

then Todd will take care of it. LP was here and done just fine before jimbo ever showed up and Todd

is the reason. I don't know Robert Perkins and never read his post but I don't need jimmy telling me

what to do either.

RL

All of this damage control just adds more to the suspicions that many thinking persons must have about WHAT is COMPELLING you and 2 or 3 others to continue your relentless campaign to stop me from providing readers with a scientific look at lottery systems. They must also be wondering why you're not out on the tour of the country's state lotteries that I suggested, cashing in on your 11 to 1 edge winning system, rather than wasting your time here trying to convice others that you've found the holy grail and that I'm completely wrong.

It doesn't compute!

P.S. And I think it's pitiful that you've become so desperate that you find it necessary to mention the boss's name several times in 2 posts, hoping he'll come and bail you out. Whatever happened to "courage of your convictions?"

P.S.S. And it really is kind of silly the way you sit there with your finger on the mouse button waiting for me to post so you can force mine below the fold.
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 10, 2011, 9:24 pm

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Apr 10, 2011
Jimboo-boo!!!!!!

RL has told you the truth. There is no conspiracy among the people who talk off board. RL and I share some common ideas about jackpot games in which he has been more than willing to assist. I've stated in the past that I don't play Cash 5, never bought a ticket for it, and that's the truth.

The story about the old computer? Entirely true. The old XP machine is used to crunch data. Not connected to the internet. I also have a laptop with Vista, which I truly hate, and this Win7 machine which I bought while my son had the old Compaq after burning up his gaming machine. When he got a new gaming machine, I got the Compaq back. It's an SR1103WM with a 20" CyberVision CRT. The camera is a Nikon Coolpix L19, 24 hour mode camera.

Let's go back to PAGE 1 where Jimmy says:

"Another way to state your observation is to say, "Anyone who would accept the results (of a Monte 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!""

Now, Jimboo-boo, I gave you a picture of the data. From that, you concocted a conspiracy(?), and that the data was WRONG!

Why didn't you accept it? There was no claim to win, no claim that that was a date/time stamp. With absolutely no claims made, your mind worked to make the data you saw fit in your perception. You went so far as to attempt a manipulation of the time and time zone to explain what you wanted to see. Why?

Here is the EXIF data from the properties menu:

Jimbo

I told you Gary was smarter then you think, I figured he was up to something and even I had to wait for him

to make this post before I understood what it was. Jimmy get some help dude, you need it.

RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 1:59 pm

Jimmy

Here is the link to download setups for day 3. These are after the draw and are given here to

supply you a means to backtest my system. Just copy and past the link into the address bar if

you are unable to click the link. This time I included picks for digit selections and filter selections

to make things a little clearer for backtesting. I think that from these you should be able to figure

out what is needed to run a bacltest given the almost unlimited user inputs that can still produce

a good win.

http://www.box.net/shared/e9ziou8vfk

RL
garyo1954

Texas
United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 2:36 pm

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Apr 11, 2011
Jimmy

Here is the link to download setups for day 3. These are after the draw and are given here to

supply you a means to backtest my system. Just copy and past the link into the address bar if

you are unable to click the link. This time I included picks for digit selections and filter selections

to make things a little clearer for backtesting. I think that from these you should be able to figure

out what is needed to run a bacltest given the almost unlimited user inputs that can still produce

a good win.

http://www.box.net/shared/e9ziou8vfk

RL

RL,

I'm noticing in F10 you didn't block any numbers and set the 0/1 for 4,5,6,7,8,9,0. Is that just for backtesting or a good setup to play?

Looking at these, I see I have a lot to learn about the sidebar filters.

Great Job my friend!
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 2:37 pm

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 10, 2011
All of this damage control just adds more to the suspicions that many thinking persons must have about WHAT is COMPELLING you and 2 or 3 others to continue your relentless campaign to stop me from providing readers with a scientific look at lottery systems. They must also be wondering why you're not out on the tour of the country's state lotteries that I suggested, cashing in on your 11 to 1 edge winning system, rather than wasting your time here trying to convice others that you've found the holy grail and that I'm completely wrong.

It doesn't compute!

P.S. And I think it's pitiful that you've become so desperate that you find it necessary to mention the boss's name several times in 2 posts, hoping he'll come and bail you out. Whatever happened to "courage of your convictions?"

P.S.S. And it really is kind of silly the way you sit there with your finger on the mouse button waiting for me to post so you can force mine below the fold.

Jimmy

Who do you really think you are. You attacked my system without understanding it. Next you accussed me

of trying to use LP as a method to sell it, Next you accused me of being disingenuous, I placed the digit

system out there for anyone to read and let them decide if it was for them. You attacked my spelling errors

math mistakes, my person, and the list goes on and on. You take so many side steps that it was hard for me

to follow what you were talking about. What is this "scientific look" as you put it. I see nothing that could

be construed as scientific. Your attacks were based on static data that I think most of us already knew way

before you showed up. You placed all of us in the "dumb basket" trying to lift your own image and what is

even worse is that you don't think that anyone else can see this. You are not the man you think you are and

all the links you posted trying to somehow associate yourself with them is laughable. Your not a teacher, leader

instructor, and I would put your intelligence in the double digit range, ie just a average person with a chip on his

sholder and who thinks way to highly of himself.

RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 3:02 pm

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Apr 11, 2011
RL,

I'm noticing in F10 you didn't block any numbers and set the 0/1 for 4,5,6,7,8,9,0. Is that just for backtesting or a good setup to play?

Looking at these, I see I have a lot to learn about the sidebar filters.

Great Job my friend!

Gary

There is no one way to do it, I try to select as many digits to put in play or to block and then I make

adjustments as needed. Each day after the drawing I may run as many as 100 setups just to see what effect

each setting could of had. All the pics I placed for download would fit into this practice, You may notice the times

on the pics showing that I spend very little time as I am just playing with the settings. When I make a run using

what I think will hit and get too many lines I may hit [reset] and then start again using a couple digits or filters

and then work my way down. You may notice that the last 4 draws had a base digit miss and this is what I call

a cluster. At times you will see a run of base digit misses that can last for a week. When they do this type of play

can pay off big-time. I don't track your TX games but I am sure you will find these clusters of base digit misses.

My #1 method that I perfer to play is using just the digits and setting each for the exact number of hits per set

but this is more an advanced type of play. I tried to get others to adapt to this way but I think that it had a

negitive effect and set them back. I now tell people to try and learn to predict digits but play the way that works

best for them. I have a few years head start so to speak and forgot that many are still in the learning stages.

It takes time for your mind to make the connections between digits, filters, groups and how they effect the outcome.

Hope this helps

RL
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 3:13 pm

Gary

I am also working on a RNG option, I got the idea from RJOh's post. This way one can set any filters, digits

or groups and then select how many sets to generate and press go. This would allow the user to open the

field a little and still play on the days when the data is hard to pin down so to speak.

RL
jimmy4164

United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 3:35 pm

Quote: Originally posted by RL-RANDOMLOGIC on Apr 11, 2011
Jimmy

Here is the link to download setups for day 3. These are after the draw and are given here to

supply you a means to backtest my system. Just copy and past the link into the address bar if

you are unable to click the link. This time I included picks for digit selections and filter selections

to make things a little clearer for backtesting. I think that from these you should be able to figure

out what is needed to run a bacltest given the almost unlimited user inputs that can still produce

a good win.

http://www.box.net/shared/e9ziou8vfk

RL

You've got to be kidding!

After all the disclaimers you've made about the impossibility of backtesting your system, you want ME to do it? I offered to show through simulation/backtesting that your primary filter will result in betting sets that do no better than QPs. You and your cohorts agreed in advance, explaining that I was correct because that filter was of no value in isolation.

You know what's required to backtest it. It's a modified version of your program that sequences itself through the draws, making the setting changes as YOU would in practise. But you've said yourself that this would be near impossible and that the final choices are sometimes prompted by your mood, and other "human elements."

No thanks! You are the only reasonable candidate to backtest YOUR program.

Have fun!

P.S. You really do believe you are "the smartest person in the room," don't you?
bobby623

San Angelo, Texas
United States
Member #1,097
January 31, 2003
1,648 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 3:55 pm

Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
and get back to the question at hand?

Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of
'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are
ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch.

However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves.

I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop
a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

What do you think??
jimmy4164

United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 8:12 pm

Quote: Originally posted by bobby623 on Apr 11, 2011
Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
and get back to the question at hand?

Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of
'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are
ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch.

However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves.

I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop
a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

What do you think??

Thanks for your thoughtful post bobby623.

Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
and get back to the question at hand? Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of 'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

If you start at the top of this thread that I initiated in an effort to conduct a discussion of backtesting and simulations, I think you will see that the problems are the result of interference from those who apparently have some vested interest in suppressing such discussion.

If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

I happen to believe that the [predictable] losses that I endure in betting on games with life changing jackpot possibilities are the price I willingly pay for a shot at that possibility. Budgetwise, these costs appear in my entertainment column.

If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

I don't believe there is any way to beat the lottery, other than to be lucky and hit the jackpot. What is worth pursuing are methods that spread your losses out by increasing your hits of small prizes. This is ALL the system software peddlers can offer you, but you can accomplish this same result with QuickPicks, or exercising the various selection generators here at lotterypost.com, for FREE!

I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

I agree! (And I've been around longer than I like to remember, too!)

Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch. However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves. I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

I'm not familiar with your methods, but they will very likely produce the kinds of bets that I described above, which is useful.

Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

Most states have caveats in their rules that get them off the hook if something unforseen causes an inordinate number of people to bet on the winning number on one day. However, I'm under the impression that the payoffs for straight and box hits on [000-999] games in most states are fixed. So, in general, I disagree with your statement.

It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

What do you think??

Good luck!

P.S. There are many opportunities at LotteryPost.com for people to engage in useful and fun exchanges, regardless of whether they increase their chances of winning the lottery. There are also opportunities, especially with the Mathematics and Gaming Forums, to learn new concepts, concepts that might enamble them to better understand the world they live in. I sincerely hope that can remain a possibility.
ameriken

Denver, Co
United States
Member #103,042
December 29, 2010
547 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 10:21 pm

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 11, 2011
Thanks for your thoughtful post bobby623.

Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
and get back to the question at hand? Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of 'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

If you start at the top of this thread that I initiated in an effort to conduct a discussion of backtesting and simulations, I think you will see that the problems are the result of interference from those who apparently have some vested interest in suppressing such discussion.

If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

I happen to believe that the [predictable] losses that I endure in betting on games with life changing jackpot possibilities are the price I willingly pay for a shot at that possibility. Budgetwise, these costs appear in my entertainment column.

If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

I don't believe there is any way to beat the lottery, other than to be lucky and hit the jackpot. What is worth pursuing are methods that spread your losses out by increasing your hits of small prizes. This is ALL the system software peddlers can offer you, but you can accomplish this same result with QuickPicks, or exercising the various selection generators here at lotterypost.com, for FREE!

I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

I agree! (And I've been around longer than I like to remember, too!)

Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch. However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves. I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

I'm not familiar with your methods, but they will very likely produce the kinds of bets that I described above, which is useful.

Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

Most states have caveats in their rules that get them off the hook if something unforseen causes an inordinate number of people to bet on the winning number on one day. However, I'm under the impression that the payoffs for straight and box hits on [000-999] games in most states are fixed. So, in general, I disagree with your statement.

It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

What do you think??

Good luck!

P.S. There are many opportunities at LotteryPost.com for people to engage in useful and fun exchanges, regardless of whether they increase their chances of winning the lottery. There are also opportunities, especially with the Mathematics and Gaming Forums, to learn new concepts, concepts that might enamble them to better understand the world they live in. I sincerely hope that can remain a possibility.

"I don't believe there is any way to beat the lottery, other than to be lucky and hit the jackpot. What is worth pursuing are methods that spread your losses out by increasing your hits of small prizes."

That's one of the more reasonable things I've heard you say about system play. Personally, that is all I really expect from system play is to reduce my cost while waiting on the elusive JP win, or perhaps being able to put more #'s into play for the same money.
jimmy4164

United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline

Apr 11, 2011, 11:06 pm

Quote: Originally posted by ameriken on Apr 11, 2011
"I don't believe there is any way to beat the lottery, other than to be lucky and hit the jackpot. What is worth pursuing are methods that spread your losses out by increasing your hits of small prizes."

That's one of the more reasonable things I've heard you say about system play. Personally, that is all I really expect from system play is to reduce my cost while waiting on the elusive JP win, or perhaps being able to put more #'s into play for the same money.

Thanks Ameriken,

You might understand why I show frustration or get impatient at times if you note that I've been saying this here for at least 8 months, and I've been employing these techniques in my own play for years!

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/1728520
RL-RANDOMLOGIC

United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline

Apr 12, 2011, 12:26 am

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 11, 2011
You've got to be kidding!

After all the disclaimers you've made about the impossibility of backtesting your system, you want ME to do it? I offered to show through simulation/backtesting that your primary filter will result in betting sets that do no better than QPs. You and your cohorts agreed in advance, explaining that I was correct because that filter was of no value in isolation.

You know what's required to backtest it. It's a modified version of your program that sequences itself through the draws, making the setting changes as YOU would in practise. But you've said yourself that this would be near impossible and that the final choices are sometimes prompted by your mood, and other "human elements."

No thanks! You are the only reasonable candidate to backtest YOUR program.

Have fun!

P.S. You really do believe you are "the smartest person in the room," don't you?

Jimmy

Maybe not as smart as many and Intelligence test would say that at least 5 or 6 out of every 1000 are more

Intelligent then I am. So based on this I would say that there are at least 50 to 150 people here at LP that are

above me in this area. I don't think this gives me any advantage because you don't need to be smart or intelligent

to win or lose the lottery, the numbers don't care one way or the other.

RL

New Topic New Poll

Subscribe to this topic

Backtesting and Simulating Lottery SystemsPrev TopicNext Topic

Backtesting and Simulating Lottery SystemsPrev Topic Next Topic