Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 9:30 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

All The Brains

Topic closed. 130 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Stack47.

Page 2 of 9
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 28, 2011, 6:05 pm - IP Logged

RL,

You sound different than the person who a few weeks ago introduced his Digit system for picking winning combinations.  You spoke of it as if you were using it to pick winning combinations regularly.  Was it just an idea you thought up off the top of your head and never tried or tested before sharing at LP? 

Now you're talking like Pumpi.  He's talked about cracking a lottery code and using a time machine to travel to the future to get drawing results before buying tickets.  Are your posts to be taken like those of Pumpi, interesting but no substance, maybe even a little comical?

There's nothing wrong with calling the routine, computer program or workout you use to pick lottery numbers a system even if it doesn't pick winners.  Just don't try convincing others that it does what it can't because someone will ask for proof.

Just my thoughts.

Good luck.

RJOH:  No way of knowing Pumpi's intentions in his postings, but he provides something LP sorely lacks on most forums:  A chuckle, smile, or even sometimes a puzzled frown.  Nobody much smiles back, which probably says more about the people who respond to him than it says about Pumpi.

As for demands for proof of claims, you're calling something that almost doesn't happen on any of these forums [except Math] a general condition.  It's true on the Math Forum a few posters have made a fetish, a litany, a mantra of demands for proof.  But you and I know that's not happening on the Lottery Systems Forum, the Pick 3 Forum, the Pick 5 forum, the Mystical Forum, anywhere but the Math Forum. 

And in fact, even there nobody expects anyone to respond with any proof because nobody even has a clear idea what would constitute proof when they ask for it.  Demands for proof are a rhetorical substitute for calling someone a liar.  Sometimes that might be justified, but in most cases the context of the statement by the person being obliquely accused of lying never explicitly made the alleged claim, except possibly by implication construed by the person doing the accusing or demanding.

In the case of RL, he said in the posts a few weeks ago, around the time I joined LP and began reading the posts being argued on Math Forum, that his system hadn't been performing too well lately.  Seemed to me at the time he was attempting to share something he'd had some success with and he wasn't demanding anything in return. 

So, how does Pumpi come into a response to a post by RL?

They're both on my favorites list along with you, winsumlosesome, WinD, and a lot of other posters I appreciate, some for some reasons, some for others.

I'm surprised to see you bringing the recent unfortunate events of the Math Forum over here where nobody demands proof and only rarely does anyone call anyone else a liar.

    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19816 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 28, 2011, 8:37 pm - IP Logged

    RJOH:  No way of knowing Pumpi's intentions in his postings, but he provides something LP sorely lacks on most forums:  A chuckle, smile, or even sometimes a puzzled frown.  Nobody much smiles back, which probably says more about the people who respond to him than it says about Pumpi.

    As for demands for proof of claims, you're calling something that almost doesn't happen on any of these forums [except Math] a general condition.  It's true on the Math Forum a few posters have made a fetish, a litany, a mantra of demands for proof.  But you and I know that's not happening on the Lottery Systems Forum, the Pick 3 Forum, the Pick 5 forum, the Mystical Forum, anywhere but the Math Forum. 

    And in fact, even there nobody expects anyone to respond with any proof because nobody even has a clear idea what would constitute proof when they ask for it.  Demands for proof are a rhetorical substitute for calling someone a liar.  Sometimes that might be justified, but in most cases the context of the statement by the person being obliquely accused of lying never explicitly made the alleged claim, except possibly by implication construed by the person doing the accusing or demanding.

    In the case of RL, he said in the posts a few weeks ago, around the time I joined LP and began reading the posts being argued on Math Forum, that his system hadn't been performing too well lately.  Seemed to me at the time he was attempting to share something he'd had some success with and he wasn't demanding anything in return. 

    So, how does Pumpi come into a response to a post by RL?

    They're both on my favorites list along with you, winsumlosesome, WinD, and a lot of other posters I appreciate, some for some reasons, some for others.

    I'm surprised to see you bringing the recent unfortunate events of the Math Forum over here where nobody demands proof and only rarely does anyone call anyone else a liar.

    I was responding to statements in RL's post.

    "Finding a method or series of methods that will unlock or crack the code so to speak......  No system with the exception of one that makes use of a time machine will ever be able to predict the next draw."

    Sounds like ideas I've read in many of Pumpi's posts, I was just giving credit where it's due.

    As for requests for proof of claims, I've read them on every forum even the Pick3 when claims of making a living playing the game are made and you will too after you've been here longer and read more posts.  I don't see requests for proof of claims as calling posters liars but requests for clearer explanations of their claims.

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

      RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

      United States
      Member #59354
      March 13, 2008
      3962 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 29, 2011, 2:16 am - IP Logged

      RL,

      You sound different than the person who a few weeks ago introduced his Digit system for picking winning combinations.  You spoke of it as if you were using it to pick winning combinations regularly.  Was it just an idea you thought up off the top of your head and never tried or tested before sharing at LP? 

      Now you're talking like Pumpi.  He's talked about cracking a lottery code and using a time machine to travel to the future to get drawing results before buying tickets.  Are your posts to be taken like those of Pumpi, interesting but no substance, maybe even a little comical?

      There's nothing wrong with calling the routine, computer program or workout you use to pick lottery numbers a system even if it doesn't pick winners.  Just don't try convincing others that it does what it can't because someone will ask for proof.

      Just my thoughts.

      Good luck.

      RJOh

      If I had my way then everyone would play digits but that's not going to happen.  I started using digits as a system

      long before LP was even an idea and have not stoped nor will I.   It has been a year since I posted the system and

      I still don't think anyone understands it.  It was never a crack or a guaranteed way of winning but if understood it

      can put some money in your pocket.   My remarks were a little sarcastic because LP is a breeding ground for sarcasm.

      I posted an idea which led to so many attacks that time would fail me to mention them all.  I am not bitter I just had

      to upgrade my views of mankind.  People don't want help they want a winning ticket.  The thing that strikes me in

      the wrong way is this.  I gave people a method which requires them to select 5 or 6 digits to play from 10.  I also

      showed them that 3 of the digits were no brainers.  Now the odds for selecting 2 or 3 from the remaining 7 can be

      calculated using real math.  1 in 21 if playing 5 digits and 1 in 35 if playing 6.  I showed that because digits hit with

      a greater frequency that they are somewhat predictable, much more then any number will ever be.  Now lets look

      at what I have said.  Around 70% of all draws have digits 1-2-3 + 2 or 3 more from 4-5-6-7-8-9-0 and I showed the

      the odds for selecting them.  I also stated that I expect 70% of the draws to fall within these  perimeters because

      approximately 70% of the lines in the matrix have the same for a 5-39.  I expected that people would know that the

      matrix defines this and if playing a different game then the rules will follow that matrix.   People don't understand the

      stats that they use and using them will produce no better odds then chance because the stats don't predict anything

      but show what one can expect over a peroid of time +/- some small deviation.  Even with a probability of .99 the event

      does not have to happen because there is always that .01% chance that it may not.  All the ideas we use have no

      guarantee and since the next draw does not follow the stats all we have left is a general idea of what may happen.

      Back when my system post was running jimmy wanted me to post proof so I started making copies of my tickets and

      the ones below are for that time, I have several more but when the post was locked I stoped scanning my tickets.

      win1win2

      Some will think that this is just a fluke but remember I made these just before my post was locked and I was going to 

      play for 2 week and post my tickets.  Everyone wanted to know how I made my selections but this is something that

      each person must find for there game.  I really thought I was not doing that well until I read what most people are 

      hitting.  All my claims are true but what does that matter people already think they know that what they are using

      is the only way and are unwilling to try anything else.  I try to test every method that anyone post hoping to find

      something better.  A few weeks back I hit two 5 of 5's in a week with around 100 lines each and then filtered them

      out getting down to my $15.00 budget.  If I kenw that they would have hit I would have bought all 100 lines but I 

      don't know from one day to the next how I will do.   Many days I do think I have a better chance but I have lost on

      some of the days I thought I would win most.   I now longer have time or the will to try and help others when for

      all my efforts all I have gotten is grief.  I am smart enough to know when I am wasting my time.

      RL


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 29, 2011, 2:28 am - IP Logged

        RL,

        You sound different than the person who a few weeks ago introduced his Digit system for picking winning combinations.  You spoke of it as if you were using it to pick winning combinations regularly.  Was it just an idea you thought up off the top of your head and never tried or tested before sharing at LP? 

        Now you're talking like Pumpi.  He's talked about cracking a lottery code and using a time machine to travel to the future to get drawing results before buying tickets.  Are your posts to be taken like those of Pumpi, interesting but no substance, maybe even a little comical?

        There's nothing wrong with calling the routine, computer program or workout you use to pick lottery numbers a system even if it doesn't pick winners.  Just don't try convincing others that it does what it can't because someone will ask for proof.

        Just my thoughts.

        Good luck.

        (Edit:  I see RL just posted while I was composing.  Here we go again!)

        RJ,

        I thought RL started sounding different last week too.  In fact, as he tossed ideas back and forth with Joey, their writing styles appeared to me to be merging!

        As for RL's Digit System -- he made claims of an 1100% edge, year over year, for 20 years, and when I challenged him, he ended up claiming some of his results were even better.  It's been puzzling me all along why, when people have a system already in play that performs at such stupendous levels, would they be wasting time here arguing with people like me and not out touring the country cashing in!

        When you asked RL, "Are your posts to be taken like those of Pumpi, interesting but no substance, maybe even a little comical?"

        ...It reminded me of statements he made back in November.  If you read this carefully, you might gain some new insights:

        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222942/1841369

        --Jimmy4164

          RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

          United States
          Member #59354
          March 13, 2008
          3962 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 29, 2011, 2:36 am - IP Logged

          (Edit:  I see RL just posted while I was composing.  Here we go again!)

          RJ,

          I thought RL started sounding different last week too.  In fact, as he tossed ideas back and forth with Joey, their writing styles appeared to me to be merging!

          As for RL's Digit System -- he made claims of an 1100% edge, year over year, for 20 years, and when I challenged him, he ended up claiming some of his results were even better.  It's been puzzling me all along why, when people have a system already in play that performs at such stupendous levels, would they be wasting time here arguing with people like me and not out touring the country cashing in!

          When you asked RL, "Are your posts to be taken like those of Pumpi, interesting but no substance, maybe even a little comical?"

          ...It reminded me of statements he made back in November.  If you read this carefully, you might gain some new insights:

          http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222942/1841369

          --Jimmy4164

          Jimmy

          When a person first starts to have some good results it is a very big deal but over a long time the feeling

          wears off, Winning one JP but comming so close many many times dulls the senses so to speak.  When I

          first started writing lottery software is was the result of a bet that someone made after I made the statement

          that I could do anything.  I was young and dumb and I have chased it in my spare time every since.  I may

          have to admit defeat and pay the the guy the $10.00 after all.  Damm it.  Second thought I might be very

          stupid after all.

          RL


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 29, 2011, 3:30 am - IP Logged

            Jimmy

            When a person first starts to have some good results it is a very big deal but over a long time the feeling

            wears off, Winning one JP but comming so close many many times dulls the senses so to speak.  When I

            first started writing lottery software is was the result of a bet that someone made after I made the statement

            that I could do anything.  I was young and dumb and I have chased it in my spare time every since.  I may

            have to admit defeat and pay the the guy the $10.00 after all.  Damm it.  Second thought I might be very

            stupid after all.

            RL

            In February, 2011, you detailed your success over 20 years of play.  You claimed your system allowed you to annually win $1100 on $360 worth of tickets when QuickPick players buying the same number of tickets as you in the same games would have expected to only win $100.  You led us all to believe you did this every year, on average, for 20 years.  If this is true, I cannot grasp how you would think there is any reason in this world that you would have to "admit defeat and pay the guy the $10 after all."

            Which post is the one we should accept as describing the actual state of affairs?  The quoted one above, or this one you made back in February?

            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/227950/1967589

              Avatar
              homeland security
              United States
              Member #82523
              November 15, 2009
              98 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 29, 2011, 3:41 am - IP Logged

              Hey guys, I didn't mean for this topic to become a little heated, I just wanted us to stand together not divided.. RL if you would due me the favor of pm'ing me your method completely ... i can improve on it .. I read some of your forums, and they were very lengthy as people were commenting on your digit system... Can you just pm your method  so I can digest it  because if u do it here, it will just reap flashbacks and backlash of your bad experience from others.. I just want us to get along and rise above our differences... The problem with reading your idea was once I read one method then a couple of pages further it metamorphed into another selecting method... so my brain was all over the place.. I would love if u can just write your final tailored adjusted method to me that works to your utmost confidence... and if any other person need my help pm me please, otherwise i'm affraid that some vets may discourage u from pursuing your idea... I try to be open minded

                RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                United States
                Member #59354
                March 13, 2008
                3962 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 29, 2011, 5:18 am - IP Logged

                thinktank

                There is no simple way to explain how I make my selections.   When I first made the post I only wanted to

                show another method of picking numbers.  When I first started out I played the numbers like most people

                do but lost most all the time.  The first thing I would say to do is calculate the  odds for every filter or method

                you intend to use for the whole game matrix.  By doing this you will know what percent every value is expected

                to hit,  in other words know your game inside and out.  I have found that the game will follow the matrix very

                close with few exceptions.  If the digit 1 is in 89% of all sets in the matrix then it will  be in 89% of the draws. 

                This is the full extent of the stats I use.  The only way to win anything one must be able to predict what will hit

                in the next draw and picking digits is easier then picking numbers.  This does not mean that it is easy but easier. 

                The frequency that digits hit is much greater then the numbers they form.  Many times digits alone will leave

                you with to many numbers to play so filters are needed.

                The filters used can be anything but should be selected with the same idea that if you can't predict them 

                they are useless. 

                Digits can used to function as filters

                Example 5-39 matrix

                Digits 1-2-3-4-6 will produce 15,504 total sets but if you place limits on each set and say that all 5 digits must

                show at least one time then there are only 5,940 sets.  If you say that digits 1-2-3 must all show twice in each

                set and digits 4-6 must show only once then there are only 132 sets that fit into this pool.  Add a couple filters

                to reduce this down to 20 or less and your good to go.  I tell people to eat, sleep, drink digits because once

                you get a good grip on how the sets fall for your game the better you can judge when to play.   Some setups

                using digits only will result in a thousand or mote sets, avoid playing these days.  The fewer steps you use

                the fewer mistakes you will make.  This is so simple but it has been turned into a complex piece of junk.   

                I pick digits I think will hit and then the software builds every set that can be made from my selections. 

                As a general rule for my 5-39 game, digits 1-2-3 have to make up 5 or 6 of the total digits within a set of 5 numbers. 

                4-5-6-7-8-9-0 are used to compleat the set.  I mostly only play 5 or 6 total digits but don't limit myself to this amount. 

                This is the whole digit system, everything else is just filters used to reduce to a playable amount.   The method I use to

                pick my digits is to first only play on the days that I think digits 1-2-3 will show with and make up 5 or 6 of the sets

                total.   I use the data from the matrix and history to choose a window of play.  The remaining digits are selected

                using a from a visual form of analysis using many bits of data.  Some of the time I selected them at random.  If I

                want to play 5 total digits then I must have 4 of them locked in so to say or if playing 6 I must have 5 locked in or I

                don't play.   How I select the remaining digit or digits is not mathematical but visual.  I tried to come up with ways to

                explain how I make the final selections but was unsuccessful, so I guess it is just an educated guess based on the

                data I review.  I miss one digit around 70% of the time but this still leaves 4 numbers in play.  Everything else is just

                basic filters but I use the same type of visual analysis for them all.  I do have a bias search tool but it is visual also

                and not based on math. 

                I ran statical data for years and found some interesting data but nothing that ever helped me win. I won't go back

                into the digit system  because while the basic concept is simple it takes time to learn and perfect,  If you are interested

                in learning to use it then everything that is needed is above.  Play on paper and track you results not in how much you

                win but how many of your choices were correct.  Feel free to use any analysis you want but I can't help you there because

                everything I have tried failed.   I am leaving LP as soon as my membership is up sometime is the next few days.

                RL

                  RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                  United States
                  Member #59354
                  March 13, 2008
                  3962 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 29, 2011, 6:07 am - IP Logged

                  Jimmy

                  My wins never really started until the later part of the 90's so I would say about 13 to 14 years.

                  Some years were better and some worse but perty close on average. 

                  RL

                    Avatar

                    United States
                    Member #105312
                    January 29, 2011
                    435 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 29, 2011, 7:55 am - IP Logged

                    Hey guys, I didn't mean for this topic to become a little heated, I just wanted us to stand together not divided.. RL if you would due me the favor of pm'ing me your method completely ... i can improve on it .. I read some of your forums, and they were very lengthy as people were commenting on your digit system... Can you just pm your method  so I can digest it  because if u do it here, it will just reap flashbacks and backlash of your bad experience from others.. I just want us to get along and rise above our differences... The problem with reading your idea was once I read one method then a couple of pages further it metamorphed into another selecting method... so my brain was all over the place.. I would love if u can just write your final tailored adjusted method to me that works to your utmost confidence... and if any other person need my help pm me please, otherwise i'm affraid that some vets may discourage u from pursuing your idea... I try to be open minded

                    thinktank:  Whatever else has happened on this thread you've gotten the answer to your original question.  Maybe some of the reason people don't work together on lottery issues it greed, but as it applies to LP there's probably a larger issue involving ego and futility.  No discussion in a thread can pursue ideas, possible methods and directions, because any effort to do so is deliberately and systematically reduced to collisions of personalities in the form of subtle and not-so-subtle attacks.  Attacks not on the method or idea, but on the person offering it.  Usually this reduces things to aggression on the one part and defensiveness on the other.

                    Yeah, if RL wants help and if you and he would wish to help one another you'd far better do it through PMs and offlist.

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7295 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 29, 2011, 10:19 am - IP Logged

                      I was responding to statements in RL's post.

                      "Finding a method or series of methods that will unlock or crack the code so to speak......  No system with the exception of one that makes use of a time machine will ever be able to predict the next draw."

                      Sounds like ideas I've read in many of Pumpi's posts, I was just giving credit where it's due.

                      As for requests for proof of claims, I've read them on every forum even the Pick3 when claims of making a living playing the game are made and you will too after you've been here longer and read more posts.  I don't see requests for proof of claims as calling posters liars but requests for clearer explanations of their claims.

                      "Sounds like ideas I've read in many of Pumpi's posts, I was just giving credit where it's due."

                      I read something this morning that tops any of Pumpi's ideas!

                      "Let's assume we both decide to buy ten $1 Pick3 straight tickets every day until we die.  Let's also assume we're vampires and expect to live for a thousand more years!"

                      Putting our collective minds together and finding better ways to play the games we're already playing is generally what LP members have been doing for years and Pumpi is the ultimate optimist. I really can't say what Jimmy is after he assumed some of the LP members are vampires and will live for thousands of years.

                      *just giving credit where it's due.

                        Avatar
                        Kentucky
                        United States
                        Member #32652
                        February 14, 2006
                        7295 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 29, 2011, 11:18 am - IP Logged

                        Jimmy

                        My wins never really started until the later part of the 90's so I would say about 13 to 14 years.

                        Some years were better and some worse but perty close on average. 

                        RL

                        I never thought it took much imagination to be a critic of anything until I read "let's pretend we're vampires and play the same 10 numbers in every drawing for the next 1000 years". 

                        Most lottery players and those who actually understand REAL lottery play assumes nobody would chase jackpots making substantial bets for over 10 years unless they made a profit or played at a greatly reduced cost. You offered a couple of examples of actual lottery play where you played 15 and 12 lines. Had you played QPs, our resident skeptic would expect you to collect maybe $3 in winnings ($24 loss) and just can't comprehend how it was possible for you to collect $328 ($301 profit) by using a system.

                        Where is it written that you or anyone must prove anything to our wanna-be lottery critic Jimmy?


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 29, 2011, 12:25 pm - IP Logged

                          I never thought it took much imagination to be a critic of anything until I read "let's pretend we're vampires and play the same 10 numbers in every drawing for the next 1000 years". 

                          Most lottery players and those who actually understand REAL lottery play assumes nobody would chase jackpots making substantial bets for over 10 years unless they made a profit or played at a greatly reduced cost. You offered a couple of examples of actual lottery play where you played 15 and 12 lines. Had you played QPs, our resident skeptic would expect you to collect maybe $3 in winnings ($24 loss) and just can't comprehend how it was possible for you to collect $328 ($301 profit) by using a system.

                          Where is it written that you or anyone must prove anything to our wanna-be lottery critic Jimmy?

                          I figured that would bring you out of your lair!  You can't pass up a chance to point out how "real" lottery players play.  Monte and Carlo just don't get it from where you sit.  Your post above reveals that you still need to spend some time studying what's going on here.

                          http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2056366

                          If you make an effort to try to answer the five questions at the end of this post, you just might figure it out.

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7295 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 30, 2011, 12:18 am - IP Logged

                            I figured that would bring you out of your lair!  You can't pass up a chance to point out how "real" lottery players play.  Monte and Carlo just don't get it from where you sit.  Your post above reveals that you still need to spend some time studying what's going on here.

                            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2056366

                            If you make an effort to try to answer the five questions at the end of this post, you just might figure it out.

                            There is nothing wrong with simulating any game of chance as long as the simulation is based on realistic play, but you take it beyond anything reasonable. Do you know five people that bought one pick-3 QP in every drawing for a year because if you don't those 49,995 other imaginary vampire QP playing friends of yours are going to look stupid playing that way in the next 20,000 drawings.

                            "Your post above reveals that you still need to spend some time studying what's going on here."

                            Nope, you're the one who is confused because here is where we "Discuss systems for predicting lottery numbers". Thinktank is suggesting a group of lottery players get together and maybe create a lottery system. But as usual, you show up and tell us what we already know and want to talk and post links about irrelevant testing.

                            We'll call you when a system is created.

                              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                              mid-Ohio
                              United States
                              Member #9
                              March 24, 2001
                              19816 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 30, 2011, 2:03 am - IP Logged

                              Running simulations is fine but if you're just simulating playing random combinations with no particular strategy then you'll probably end up with information you already know. 

                              MegaMillions has had 619 drawings with its present matrix of 5/56 + 1/49 and in 313 or 50% of those drawings the 5 winning WB have been in 23 or less of the previous drawings a total 15 of less times and 50% of winning magaball have repeated in less than 16 drawings.  A useful simulation might tell me if picking 10 combinations within those parameters for the last 100 drawings would have produced better results than the odds would suggest.  I already know the odds of picking winners randomly with no particular strategy.

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