Welcome Guest
You last visited December 6, 2016, 11:05 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# All The Brains

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

 Page 6 of 9

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 2, 2011, 11:59 pm - IP Logged

I believe, and I think I have shown that systems can allow you to have an effect on the DISTRIBUTION of your winnings, but NOT the overall AMOUNT that you will win, over time.

Which systems did you use to show those results?  I didn't know any systems had been available for examination.

I didn't target specific systems to show how they can effect DISTRIBUTION.  I went to great pains to present evidence that randomness is all that is necessary to produce the kinds of dispersion of winnings that we see.

This post and the one right above it contain what is necessary to understand what I'm getting at.  That's the best I can do with the time available.  If you have a very strong need to believe that you can use systems to win more money in the lottery than the average person, you may find it difficult to see what the two graphs are presenting to you here.  Answering the questions there will help.

Perhaps I should set up a Poll for this question, but let me ask it now anyway.  If there is some percentage (P) of the lottery playing public that you believe is consistently, and continuously winning at a rate that gives them a ROI of 100% or better, which is 50% better than all the rest, WHAT % DO YOU BELIEVE P is, approximately?

United States
Member #5599
July 13, 2004
1184 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 12:01 am - IP Logged

Hi,

I guess that I didn't make myself clear. From my perspective, using any sort of random numbers as a source of a predictive lottery system or using a random number generator to simulate another random number generator will ultimately be a futile mathematical excercise.

I also respect the fact that whatever system or method presented here has some percieved value to the person presenting it. The question then becomes, does it have value to what you are working on. There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears. Aside from the fact that it is an unnecessary distraction in developing your own system.

The acid test for all of us is in how much we win and how much we lose.

Best of luck and thanks for the response.

You are a slave to the choices you have made.  jk

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 12:09 am - IP Logged

@JKING:

This statement of yours has been keeping me going...

"The acid test for all of us is in how much we win and how much we lose."

However, I've been thinking a lot lately about the truth of your other statement,

"There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears."

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 12:57 am - IP Logged

Hi,

I guess that I didn't make myself clear. From my perspective, using any sort of random numbers as a source of a predictive lottery system or using a random number generator to simulate another random number generator will ultimately be a futile mathematical excercise.

I also respect the fact that whatever system or method presented here has some percieved value to the person presenting it. The question then becomes, does it have value to what you are working on. There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears. Aside from the fact that it is an unnecessary distraction in developing your own system.

The acid test for all of us is in how much we win and how much we lose.

Best of luck and thanks for the response.

There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears. Aside from the fact that it is an unnecessary distraction in developing your own system.

The modern world is full of inventions created by those who didn't pay attention to the people sitting around saying "it's impossible".

In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10350 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 1:03 am - IP Logged

I'm sure lotteries are running tests all the time checking to make sure there's no abnormalities in  their equipment that can be exploited by players but what "code" are you talking about players trying to crack?

RJOh,

Anything and everything done in an effort to beat the game.

I'm pretty sure that not only do the lotteries have their own people constantly checking the integrity of the games, but that the games are tested and retested before thye ever become availalble to the public.

The incident years ago in Pennsylvania with the Pick 3 was a fluke, bit somewhat of an inside job, no?

That and the group that teamed up on the Virginia lottery, but since then no one can tie up terminals like that.

The lotteries are always ahead of whatever the players can come up with, whether it's trying to manipulate a RNG, somehow control how ping pong balls bounced around by air are going to land, or coming up with a math formula to pick one winning combination out of millions in a jackpot game.

Just think if someone could beat a game conistently and prove it to a lottery commission. Would they do it to win a jackpot or tell the lottery commission "tell you what, I can beat any game and will make sure know one else finds this out. Just give me one hald of one opercent of ticket sales from now on."

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

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

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19825 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 1:22 pm - IP Logged

I didn't target specific systems to show how they can effect DISTRIBUTION.  I went to great pains to present evidence that randomness is all that is necessary to produce the kinds of dispersion of winnings that we see.

This post and the one right above it contain what is necessary to understand what I'm getting at.  That's the best I can do with the time available.  If you have a very strong need to believe that you can use systems to win more money in the lottery than the average person, you may find it difficult to see what the two graphs are presenting to you here.  Answering the questions there will help.

Perhaps I should set up a Poll for this question, but let me ask it now anyway.  If there is some percentage (P) of the lottery playing public that you believe is consistently, and continuously winning at a rate that gives them a ROI of 100% or better, which is 50% better than all the rest, WHAT % DO YOU BELIEVE P is, approximately?

If there is some percentage (P) of the lottery playing public that you believe is consistently, and continuously winning at a rate that gives them a ROI of 100% or better, which is 50% better than all the rest, WHAT % DO YOU BELIEVE P is, approximately?

I have no reason to believe that any players except jackpot winners are winning more than they spend because I have no reason to disbelieve lotteries reports of returning 50% of sales in prizes.  With number games this means players if they play consistently and continuously can win 50% of their money back and players of pick5 and pick6 games can expect less since most jackpots take 30% of sales, leaving only 20% for those who win less than a jackpot.

Doing the math tells me when there's a 5/39 jackpot winner the states expect to sell \$575,757 worth of tickets, payout a jackpot of ~\$172,727 leaving ~\$115,151 for the remaining ticket holders whcih means the average pick5 player can expect to win back ~20% of what he spends on tickets unless he wins the jackpot.  The figures for PB and MM are different because the second prize winners can win more than they're likely to ever spend of tickets in a life time too.

I think anyone, even system players can do the math but that shouldn't keep them from trying.  For me trying is entertaining and affordable.

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

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19825 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 1:41 pm - IP Logged

RJOh,

Anything and everything done in an effort to beat the game.

I'm pretty sure that not only do the lotteries have their own people constantly checking the integrity of the games, but that the games are tested and retested before thye ever become availalble to the public.

The incident years ago in Pennsylvania with the Pick 3 was a fluke, bit somewhat of an inside job, no?

That and the group that teamed up on the Virginia lottery, but since then no one can tie up terminals like that.

The lotteries are always ahead of whatever the players can come up with, whether it's trying to manipulate a RNG, somehow control how ping pong balls bounced around by air are going to land, or coming up with a math formula to pick one winning combination out of millions in a jackpot game.

Just think if someone could beat a game conistently and prove it to a lottery commission. Would they do it to win a jackpot or tell the lottery commission "tell you what, I can beat any game and will make sure know one else finds this out. Just give me one hald of one opercent of ticket sales from now on."

Anything and everything done in an effort to beat the game.

Any and everything done to beat the game doesn't classify as a code to me.

Just think if someone could beat a game conistently and prove it ........

The fact that anyone would need to prove they could beat a game consistently means they've never done it or someone else would have already noticed.

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

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10350 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 3, 2011, 4:59 pm - IP Logged

Anything and everything done in an effort to beat the game.

Any and everything done to beat the game doesn't classify as a code to me.

Just think if someone could beat a game conistently and prove it ........

The fact that anyone would need to prove they could beat a game consistently means they've never done it or someone else would have already noticed.

"Any and everything done to beat the game doesn't classify as a code to me."

No, but it's an attempt to "crack the code", so to speak.

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

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

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 4, 2011, 8:27 am - IP Logged

There is no point in trying to prove a point when it falls on deaf ears. Aside from the fact that it is an unnecessary distraction in developing your own system.

The modern world is full of inventions created by those who didn't pay attention to the people sitting around saying "it's impossible".

time*treat:  Good summation.  Maybe the ones who say it's impossible are right.  Maybe nobody will manage what those who say it's impossible say is impossible.  Or maybe someone will, and those who said it's impossible will learn of it and quickly lose the memory of having said it's impossible, then go on to say something else is impossible that hasn't happened yet.

The act of saying something is impossible doesn't have much of a relationship with whether it's actually impossible.  It just has a lot of bearing on the degree of effort the person who said it puts into attempting it.

Those who aren't so certain and do attempt it, and they might not succeed, might decide the effort was wasted, might then decide it is impossible.

Which still doesn't mean it's impossible.

Impossible doesn't come along as often as we're prone to think we see it.  A lot of the trees it hides behind peeking out so we get a glimpse of it are later discovered to have been stage props and scenery instead of the real thing.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 4, 2011, 11:59 am - IP Logged

If there is some percentage (P) of the lottery playing public that you believe is consistently, and continuously winning at a rate that gives them a ROI of 100% or better, which is 50% better than all the rest, WHAT % DO YOU BELIEVE P is, approximately?

I have no reason to believe that any players except jackpot winners are winning more than they spend because I have no reason to disbelieve lotteries reports of returning 50% of sales in prizes.  With number games this means players if they play consistently and continuously can win 50% of their money back and players of pick5 and pick6 games can expect less since most jackpots take 30% of sales, leaving only 20% for those who win less than a jackpot.

Doing the math tells me when there's a 5/39 jackpot winner the states expect to sell \$575,757 worth of tickets, payout a jackpot of ~\$172,727 leaving ~\$115,151 for the remaining ticket holders whcih means the average pick5 player can expect to win back ~20% of what he spends on tickets unless he wins the jackpot.  The figures for PB and MM are different because the second prize winners can win more than they're likely to ever spend of tickets in a life time too.

I think anyone, even system players can do the math but that shouldn't keep them from trying.  For me trying is entertaining and affordable.

Well RJ, it looks like I'm preaching to the choir in your case.  I'm glad you spelled it out so clearly.

However, I'm sure there are many who disagree with you, and I still would like to know the value of "P" that they think is correct.

Any ideas?

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19825 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 4, 2011, 1:28 pm - IP Logged

Well RJ, it looks like I'm preaching to the choir in your case.  I'm glad you spelled it out so clearly.

However, I'm sure there are many who disagree with you, and I still would like to know the value of "P" that they think is correct.

Any ideas?

I'm sure there are because I almost did it back in 2002 when I match 5of6 in the Ohio Super Lottery for \$1500 in April of that year, but in December I finally had bought \$3000 worth of tickets and ended in the hole \$25 or so for the year.

Worst part, since I got a W-G2 and had to add that \$1500 to my taxable income and could only claim up to the \$1500 as a lost, I didn't exceed the standard deductions I was getting without the win and ended up paying almost \$250 more  taxes, so that \$1500 win cost me \$1500 in tickets and \$250 in taxes.  That was the best year I ever had playing the lottery!

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 4, 2011, 2:14 pm - IP Logged

I'm sure there are because I almost did it back in 2002 when I match 5of6 in the Ohio Super Lottery for \$1500 in April of that year, but in December I finally had bought \$3000 worth of tickets and ended in the hole \$25 or so for the year.

Worst part, since I got a W-G2 and had to add that \$1500 to my taxable income and could only claim up to the \$1500 as a lost, I didn't exceed the standard deductions I was getting without the win and ended up paying almost \$250 more  taxes, so that \$1500 win cost me \$1500 in tickets and \$250 in taxes.  That was the best year I ever had playing the lottery!

At least you can take consolation in the fact that you are not alone.

A positive way to look at that year is that it only cost you \$250 for all those chances you had to hit a jackpot!

P  ==  ??

United States
Member #97695
September 21, 2010
358 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 5, 2011, 5:26 pm - IP Logged

I don't believe anyone can crack the code If the seed is changed before every draw.

Hell yes!! go look at my thread.

United States
Member #75358
June 1, 2009
5345 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2011, 1:21 am - IP Logged

Hell yes!! go look at my thread.

I was referring to JP games, not P-3.

In any event, I doubt you broke the code. To break the code in P-3, at least in my book, would enable you to quit your job immediately, move to Hawaii, and buy a modest Yacht until the exponential profits would kick in. Then an upgrade would be imminent...lol

United States
Member #41383
June 16, 2006
1969 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2011, 12:30 pm - IP Logged

There is no 'code'.

All there is  is our ability to guess future games based on past performance, or based on whatever you want to base it on, and if you get lucky, the numbers drawn will match your selections, not the other way around.

If there was a 'code' to break, it would be hit EVERY TIME.

 Page 6 of 9