Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 9, 2016, 4:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

A Wheel Question...

Topic closed. 35 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Stack47.

Page 2 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7318 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 21, 2011, 5:33 pm - IP Logged

I found Ion Saliu's website long before posting the above but it is of no importance.  Apparently, you think that such knowledge adds to your "Lottery IQ." Smile  If you investigated Don Catlin a little further you would learn that, among other things, he IS a consultant.  But that information would NOT add any points to your Lottery IQ.  And since his math is not to your liking, it won't add any points to any other IQ you might possess.

Are you implying that the casino industry makes its money using math principals that disagree with Catlin's?

Rather than try to refute the mathematically sound principals in his books and essays that expose your beliefs about lottery bets as hogwash, you want to contest his current job status.  Oh boy!

And you think I'm ignoring the fact that someone who uses a system won a jackpot.  Really?  What can I say other than to point out that he's not alone.  National stats indicate that around 30% of the winners choose their own numbers.  What do you say when a QuickPick player wins?

You seem very proud of the fact that you have a lot of knowledge of the lottery.  I'm happy for you and concede that you probably know at least 10 times as much as me.  However, about the only way that knowledge will contribute to your financial gain is if you use it to produce lottery software or design ads to entice people to pay you for betting advice.  Design and build a website that competes with LP and you might make a few bucks too.  As far as your ability to increase the Prize Ratio of your lottery bets is concerned, your "Lottery IQ" is worthless!

If you feel you can show Don Catlin's or BlueJay's work to be faulty in any way, you really should hire a ghost writer to help you write a book.  On second thought, the LP type website idea is probably your best bet.

"If you investigated Don Catlin a little further you would learn that, among other things, he IS a consultant."

Pumpi had a question about a pick-4 wheel and you're off on a tangent and want to debate the credibility of a gaming writer. Even if Steve Wynn couldn't go to the bathroom without consulting with Catlin, his opinions are useless to the question.

"Are you implying that the casino industry makes its money using math principals that disagree with Catlin's? "

Catlin's writes articles in the Casino City Times for novice gamblers who probably were never in a casino and wrote a lottery book "The truth behind the numbers". The only review I found sums up the lottery/gaming IQs of his readers, "I think that this is the best book that I have read until now."

"National stats indicate that around 30% of the winners choose their own numbers."

From the tongue-in-cheek FAQ section of the Powerball site: "About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks. Perhaps just one of those weird coincidences?"

Point taken, the Florida jackpot winner fails into the 30% group of self picks by using a system, but he did make the effort to arrange the numbers into combos and there are no statistics comparing $1 birthday numbers picks to 42 combo wheels. However Pumpi ask a question about a pick-4 wheel so none of these statistics apply.

There seems to be a dispute between the Casino City Times' strategy expert writers (aka industry consultants LMAO!).

http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/math-is-truly-annoying-59986


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 21, 2011, 10:03 pm - IP Logged

    "If you investigated Don Catlin a little further you would learn that, among other things, he IS a consultant."

    Pumpi had a question about a pick-4 wheel and you're off on a tangent and want to debate the credibility of a gaming writer. Even if Steve Wynn couldn't go to the bathroom without consulting with Catlin, his opinions are useless to the question.

    "Are you implying that the casino industry makes its money using math principals that disagree with Catlin's? "

    Catlin's writes articles in the Casino City Times for novice gamblers who probably were never in a casino and wrote a lottery book "The truth behind the numbers". The only review I found sums up the lottery/gaming IQs of his readers, "I think that this is the best book that I have read until now."

    "National stats indicate that around 30% of the winners choose their own numbers."

    From the tongue-in-cheek FAQ section of the Powerball site: "About 70% to 80% of purchases are computer picks. About 70% to 80% of winners are computer picks. Perhaps just one of those weird coincidences?"

    Point taken, the Florida jackpot winner fails into the 30% group of self picks by using a system, but he did make the effort to arrange the numbers into combos and there are no statistics comparing $1 birthday numbers picks to 42 combo wheels. However Pumpi ask a question about a pick-4 wheel so none of these statistics apply.

    There seems to be a dispute between the Casino City Times' strategy expert writers (aka industry consultants LMAO!).

    http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/math-is-truly-annoying-59986

    Stack47,

    You are absolutely right about me being off topic in this thread.  Against my better judgement I purposely took a swipe at you shortly after you sideswiped me in another thread.  When you've finished reading what I have to say here, then click this to see why.  I posted a serious reply to Wooddrive; you replied with an insult.

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/233671/2137774

    You are a master of the obfuscation technique of false narrative.  You want to childishly argue about what type of consultant Don Catlin is because his math is over your head.  Admit it!  But whether you understand him, or Michael Bluejay, or Michael Shackleford (Wizard of Odds), or me is a moot point because it's our conclusions based on the math that you can't deal with.  That's not to say you don't have a high "Lottery IQ."  It's not that you don't understand the long term probabilities of various lottery games.  It's clear that you do.  Your problem is that when you see short term gains from system play, you assume they are the result of the systematic selection techniques used.  Mathematicians do NOT!  All that can be effected with a system is the DISTRIBUTION of the winnings over time, not the amount.  As I have alluded to many times before, if you believe a certain ball in a certain game is more likely to pop up than the others, you really need to call for an investigation of the equipment in that game, including weighing and measuring the many sets of balls they use.

    I'm leaving this thread because it was not started for you and I to argue.  If you want to pursue this further, I respectfully request that you first return to the Backtesting and Simulation threads in the Mathematics Forum and make another attempt to understand what's there.  Based on your postings and PMs, I think you might have the ability to disengage yourself from the clutches of that powerful seducer, the Gambler's Fallacy.  All you need is the courage to face the possibility that Don, the two Michaels and me are right, and you are wrong.

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2013229

    Thank you,

    --Jimmy4164

    P.S.

    http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 21, 2011, 11:17 pm - IP Logged

      P.S.  I'm really surprised you linked to Scoblete's article.  I think the joke's on you; I didn't find a dispute.  Scoblete delineated the various types of gamblers.  Highly recommended!

      http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/math-is-truly-annoying-59986

      "Sadly the 'inspired,' 'intuitive' and 'angry' players don't want to be shackled by the math. It annoys them no end to think that there is a very simple way to look at the games and that the casinos and the savvy players have figured this out. While these poor ploppies wish the math did not hold sway over the gods of chance, the fact is that math rules. Math is the Zeus of the gambling gods. Its word is law."

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7318 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 23, 2011, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

        Stack47,

        You are absolutely right about me being off topic in this thread.  Against my better judgement I purposely took a swipe at you shortly after you sideswiped me in another thread.  When you've finished reading what I have to say here, then click this to see why.  I posted a serious reply to Wooddrive; you replied with an insult.

        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/233671/2137774

        You are a master of the obfuscation technique of false narrative.  You want to childishly argue about what type of consultant Don Catlin is because his math is over your head.  Admit it!  But whether you understand him, or Michael Bluejay, or Michael Shackleford (Wizard of Odds), or me is a moot point because it's our conclusions based on the math that you can't deal with.  That's not to say you don't have a high "Lottery IQ."  It's not that you don't understand the long term probabilities of various lottery games.  It's clear that you do.  Your problem is that when you see short term gains from system play, you assume they are the result of the systematic selection techniques used.  Mathematicians do NOT!  All that can be effected with a system is the DISTRIBUTION of the winnings over time, not the amount.  As I have alluded to many times before, if you believe a certain ball in a certain game is more likely to pop up than the others, you really need to call for an investigation of the equipment in that game, including weighing and measuring the many sets of balls they use.

        I'm leaving this thread because it was not started for you and I to argue.  If you want to pursue this further, I respectfully request that you first return to the Backtesting and Simulation threads in the Mathematics Forum and make another attempt to understand what's there.  Based on your postings and PMs, I think you might have the ability to disengage yourself from the clutches of that powerful seducer, the Gambler's Fallacy.  All you need is the courage to face the possibility that Don, the two Michaels and me are right, and you are wrong.

        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2013229

        Thank you,

        --Jimmy4164

        P.S.

        http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

        "You want to childishly argue about what type of consultant Don Catlin is because his math is over your head."

        Why would multi-billion dollar corporations like MGM, Caesar's Entertainment, or the Boyd Group need Don Catlin to explain to them why every possible bet on a roulette wheel is paid off in increments of 36 to 1 or why a place bet on 6 or 8 pays $7 to $6 and the odds bets on the same numbers pays $6 to $5?

        Casino profits are determined by volume of play based on payoff odds used long before Catlin came to Vegas. It wasn't Catlin who advised the Corporations to build larger parking lots, offer double, 5 times, or 100 times odds on craps tables, or any number of innovations contributing to their bottom line. The only major changes to any casino table games in the last 30 years was to Blackjack and that credit goes to Edward O. Thorp.

        Catlin writes gaming articles for a paper that's intended for people looking for a nice cheap place to stay in Vegas and discounts on food and shows. His mathematics qualifications are of no value to penny slot players looking for a $1.99 steak and eggs breakfast. He may give sound gaming advice to novice players but they probably don't play those games. You're given way too much credit to a gaming writer in a paper that very few people read. Can you offer just one gaming innovation credited to Catlin?

        "But whether you understand him, or Michael Bluejay, or Michael Shackleford (Wizard of Odds), or me is a moot point"

        With Bluejay it's only necessary to read his lopsided rules to know why the high priced "get rich quick" systems ignore him and since even the simple playing strategies are for short term play, only a fool would give his 200,000 round challenge any credibility. What part of nobody, for whatever reasons, has replied to his challenge don't you understand?

        John Wooden was called "the Wizard of Westwood" and Doyle Brunson is called the "Godfather of Poker". Even the "one and done" college players know who Wooden was and Brunson is a poker icon. More people know who Rusty Shackleford is; Michael must not have much credibility when you seem to be the only person on this board who has heard of him.

        "I'm leaving this thread because it was not started for you and I to argue."

        The only reason I replied to this thread is because Pumpi made a huge mistake on the number of combos in 2 if 4 ten number wheel. I could have spent time explaining the math but chose to give a link to a free simple wheel generator so he could see for himself. I have no idea who Ion Salui's complicated formulas are intended for when there many easier ways to explain the math.


          United States
          Member #93947
          July 10, 2010
          2180 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 23, 2011, 6:30 pm - IP Logged

          "You want to childishly argue about what type of consultant Don Catlin is because his math is over your head."

          Why would multi-billion dollar corporations like MGM, Caesar's Entertainment, or the Boyd Group need Don Catlin to explain to them why every possible bet on a roulette wheel is paid off in increments of 36 to 1 or why a place bet on 6 or 8 pays $7 to $6 and the odds bets on the same numbers pays $6 to $5?

          Casino profits are determined by volume of play based on payoff odds used long before Catlin came to Vegas. It wasn't Catlin who advised the Corporations to build larger parking lots, offer double, 5 times, or 100 times odds on craps tables, or any number of innovations contributing to their bottom line. The only major changes to any casino table games in the last 30 years was to Blackjack and that credit goes to Edward O. Thorp.

          Catlin writes gaming articles for a paper that's intended for people looking for a nice cheap place to stay in Vegas and discounts on food and shows. His mathematics qualifications are of no value to penny slot players looking for a $1.99 steak and eggs breakfast. He may give sound gaming advice to novice players but they probably don't play those games. You're given way too much credit to a gaming writer in a paper that very few people read. Can you offer just one gaming innovation credited to Catlin?

          "But whether you understand him, or Michael Bluejay, or Michael Shackleford (Wizard of Odds), or me is a moot point"

          With Bluejay it's only necessary to read his lopsided rules to know why the high priced "get rich quick" systems ignore him and since even the simple playing strategies are for short term play, only a fool would give his 200,000 round challenge any credibility. What part of nobody, for whatever reasons, has replied to his challenge don't you understand?

          John Wooden was called "the Wizard of Westwood" and Doyle Brunson is called the "Godfather of Poker". Even the "one and done" college players know who Wooden was and Brunson is a poker icon. More people know who Rusty Shackleford is; Michael must not have much credibility when you seem to be the only person on this board who has heard of him.

          "I'm leaving this thread because it was not started for you and I to argue."

          The only reason I replied to this thread is because Pumpi made a huge mistake on the number of combos in 2 if 4 ten number wheel. I could have spent time explaining the math but chose to give a link to a free simple wheel generator so he could see for himself. I have no idea who Ion Salui's complicated formulas are intended for when there many easier ways to explain the math.

          Stack47,

          ...and so you go on, and on, and on...  You won't give up trying to obfuscate and question the credentials of people who's mathematical abilities and understanding clearly surpass your own. 

          I think it's simply because...

          ...you just can't face the truth!

          Earlier I said, "I think you might have the ability to disengage yourself from the clutches of that powerful seducer, the Gambler's Fallacy."  I hereby retract that statement.

          I also said, "All you need is the courage to face the possibility that Don, the two Michaels and me are right, and you are wrong."  I doubt if that's ever going to happen.

          Frank Scoblete summed this up quite nicely at Casino City Times...

          http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/math-is-truly-annoying-59986

          "The math is annoying to players who wish the math didn't have the last say. These players are married to a spouse that takes them to the cleaners and there is no way to divorce their casino spouse except if they completely stop playing the games.

          "Sadly, the 'inspired,' 'intuitive' and 'angry' players don't want to be shackled by the math. It annoys them no end to think that there is a very simple way to look at the games and that the casinos and the savvy players have figured this out. While these poor ploppies wish the math did not hold sway over the gods of chance, the fact is that math rules. Math is the Zeus of the gambling gods. Its word is law."

          Since the math is obviously annoying to you, how do you think Frank would categorize you... "inspired," "intuitive," or "angry?"

          Michael Shackleford does a pretty good job too...

          http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

          (Be sure to click on "Who is the Wizard of Odds."

           

          --Jimmy4164

          P.S.  Why don't you give it up dude?  In some circles, you would be viewed as wise, if you did.

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7318 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 24, 2011, 1:35 pm - IP Logged

            Stack47,

            ...and so you go on, and on, and on...  You won't give up trying to obfuscate and question the credentials of people who's mathematical abilities and understanding clearly surpass your own. 

            I think it's simply because...

            ...you just can't face the truth!

            Earlier I said, "I think you might have the ability to disengage yourself from the clutches of that powerful seducer, the Gambler's Fallacy."  I hereby retract that statement.

            I also said, "All you need is the courage to face the possibility that Don, the two Michaels and me are right, and you are wrong."  I doubt if that's ever going to happen.

            Frank Scoblete summed this up quite nicely at Casino City Times...

            http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/math-is-truly-annoying-59986

            "The math is annoying to players who wish the math didn't have the last say. These players are married to a spouse that takes them to the cleaners and there is no way to divorce their casino spouse except if they completely stop playing the games.

            "Sadly, the 'inspired,' 'intuitive' and 'angry' players don't want to be shackled by the math. It annoys them no end to think that there is a very simple way to look at the games and that the casinos and the savvy players have figured this out. While these poor ploppies wish the math did not hold sway over the gods of chance, the fact is that math rules. Math is the Zeus of the gambling gods. Its word is law."

            Since the math is obviously annoying to you, how do you think Frank would categorize you... "inspired," "intuitive," or "angry?"

            Michael Shackleford does a pretty good job too...

            http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

            (Be sure to click on "Who is the Wizard of Odds."

             

            --Jimmy4164

            P.S.  Why don't you give it up dude?  In some circles, you would be viewed as wise, if you did.

            Basically you're saying because these guy write gaming articles for the Casino City Times, they are THE casino industry experts.

            "All you need is the courage to face the possibility that Don, the two Michaels and me are right, and you are wrong."

            I'm assuming you're saying I'm wrong about their credentials because you read their articles, found them fascinating and I find those articles useless information to me. The difference between you and me is that I read other articles written on the same subjects years before your experts wrote their first article. Their credentials are useless because they are just rehashing things that's been written many times before.

            I'm not knocking Casino City Times or their writers because I do believe they offer a service to the novice gamblers and tourists like yourself. If it makes more sense to you when Don Catlin says "never split face cards" than when one of the Patel family says it, don't do it for that reason alone.

            Courage has never been a factor when I've told you over and over again the majority of your posts contain useless and boring information. 

            Have you been in a gambling coma for last 30 years?


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 24, 2011, 3:27 pm - IP Logged

              Basically you're saying because these guy write gaming articles for the Casino City Times, they are THE casino industry experts.

              "All you need is the courage to face the possibility that Don, the two Michaels and me are right, and you are wrong."

              I'm assuming you're saying I'm wrong about their credentials because you read their articles, found them fascinating and I find those articles useless information to me. The difference between you and me is that I read other articles written on the same subjects years before your experts wrote their first article. Their credentials are useless because they are just rehashing things that's been written many times before.

              I'm not knocking Casino City Times or their writers because I do believe they offer a service to the novice gamblers and tourists like yourself. If it makes more sense to you when Don Catlin says "never split face cards" than when one of the Patel family says it, don't do it for that reason alone.

              Courage has never been a factor when I've told you over and over again the majority of your posts contain useless and boring information. 

              Have you been in a gambling coma for last 30 years?

              Stack47,

              The issue here is not the journalistic credentials of mathematicians and gaming consultants, it's whether their experience allows them to assert mathematical principals that refute your claims regarding the chances of winning lotteries.  Above you said,

              "With Bluejay it's only necessary to read his lopsided rules to know why the high priced 'get rich quick' systems ignore him and since even the simple playing strategies are for SHORT TERM PLAY, only a fool would give his 200,000 round challenge any credibility(?). What part of nobody, for whatever reasons, has replied to his challenge don't you understand?"

              Here, you clearly explain, all by yourself, what the problem is in your thinking.  On the one hand, you agree that if you were to take the 200,000 round challenge, YOU WOULD LOSE!  But on the other hand, you fail to see why it is intuitively obvious why so few have accepted the challenge. (Duh...)  (At least one person did challenge either Shackleford or Bluejay, and lost.)  So you ask me to explain it.  Apparently, most people understand that over the long haul, you LOSE, even when the house only has a 5% edge, like in Roulette.  Or, like you, they feel the rules are rigged against their winning systems. Confused  And you want us to believe that it is possible to beat state lotteries, who enjoy a 50% EDGE!  I invested considerable effort, posting pretty graphs and all in my Backtesting threads to try to show you that, in the short term, there are plenty of winners AND losers, but as you lengthen the time frame, their losses eventually converge to the point dictated by the mathematical edge of the house.  To no avail.  You either don't understand the bell shaped curves I posted, or you choose to ignore them.

              .........

              The reason you think it's possible to win is not because you don't understand the long term odds - it appears you do.  You, like so many others, look back over the short term of lottery draws and look for patterns.  Sometimes you couple this with analyses of years of results of various games and look for differences in the frequencies of occurrence of the possible outcomes. You can't give up your belief in your ability to CONTROL your outcomes by trying to second guess the random ball machines!  No matter how loud you scream that you are not seduced by the Gambler's Fallacy, you are.  You're in love!

              If you're not happy with Don Catlin's credentials, see if Michael Shackleford can open your eyes...

              http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

              Here are his credentials:

              http://wizardofodds.com/general/

              --Jimmy4164

              P.S. Give it up man!


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 24, 2011, 3:33 pm - IP Logged

                The Wizard of Odds is Michael Shackleford, A.S.A., a professional actuary who has made a career of analyzing casino games. He runs the numbers on new games for casinos and game developers and has helped design many of the popular slot machines on the Internet. He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Casino Math at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a former contributing editor to Casino Player magazine, and the author of the book Gambling 102, recently published by Huntington Press. The Wizard's landmark research into the actual returns of slot machines on the Las Vegas strip garnered international attention in 2002, and he has appeared numerous times on national television as a recognized expert on gambling strategy.

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7318 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 25, 2011, 5:26 pm - IP Logged

                  The Wizard of Odds is Michael Shackleford, A.S.A., a professional actuary who has made a career of analyzing casino games. He runs the numbers on new games for casinos and game developers and has helped design many of the popular slot machines on the Internet. He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Casino Math at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a former contributing editor to Casino Player magazine, and the author of the book Gambling 102, recently published by Huntington Press. The Wizard's landmark research into the actual returns of slot machines on the Las Vegas strip garnered international attention in 2002, and he has appeared numerous times on national television as a recognized expert on gambling strategy.

                  I found an ancient article written by Shackleford "Strategy and Odds of Craps".

                  http://wizardofodds.com/craps

                  I had to chuckle when I saw it was last updated on August 2, 2010 because I haven't seen the "Big 6 and 8" bets on any Craps table layout in over ten years. That must be irrelevant to your expert who still includes it on his "play for free" game he is so proud of. 

                  If Shackleford is positive no system can beat Craps, why is he giving Craps strategy?

                  If Shackleford is THE knowledgeable expert you claim is he, why does he include a Craps bet that no longer exist on his simulation layout and explains it?

                  "He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Casino Math at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a former contributing editor to Casino Player magazine, and the author of the book Gambling 102, recently published by Huntington Press."

                  Every state with legal casino gambling has dealer schools with the same odds being taught. I'll bet many other teachers contribute to gaming mags and may have written a best seller or two. UNLV offers degrees in casino management and any gaming corporation will say their bottom line is more important than odds knowledge whether it was taught by Shackleford or Joe the Plumber.

                  When Mountaineer Park began offering table games, very few of their recent dealer school grads understood procedure and proper payoffs. We had to watch them like hawks because they frequently underpaid us, call the floorman, and hope nobody noticed when they over paid us. I had dealer overpay me on a bet I lost while the floorman was watching. Wonder if either of them were Shackleford students?

                  It's obvious Shackleford and Catlin know the game odds, but so do millions of others. Gail Howard employed experts with better credentials than Shackleford or any of your other experts to develop her wheels. The difference between your so called experts and mine (and Howard's) are yours created silly challenges that are ignored by players and mine are trying to help players make smarter decisions on bets they are already making. I spent 20 minutes at breakfast explaining to a friend why it's stupid to split face cards playing Blackjack only to have him tell me two hours later that the dealer and the other players at his table all yelled at him when he did. If somebody already decided to make a $20 bet and asks for advice, we can only give our opinions but how they make that bet is none of our business.

                  Pumpi thought a 3 if 4 pick-4 wheel had 70 combos when it only has 18. How he uses my advice is none of my business. Other than the basic questions answered many times, members of LP freely offer their opinions. I suppose someone could make a little money writing a "how to" lottery or gaming book, but considering all the competition, I doubt they'll make very much.

                  Speaking of making a profit off lottery games, the PA Evening Daily Numbers game paid out approximately $601,475,000 in the last 3 years. Can you or any of your experts explain why if nobody can make a profit playing lottery games, who shared the almost $602 million they paid out in $500 or less increments?

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7318 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: July 25, 2011, 8:21 pm - IP Logged

                    Stack47,

                    The issue here is not the journalistic credentials of mathematicians and gaming consultants, it's whether their experience allows them to assert mathematical principals that refute your claims regarding the chances of winning lotteries.  Above you said,

                    "With Bluejay it's only necessary to read his lopsided rules to know why the high priced 'get rich quick' systems ignore him and since even the simple playing strategies are for SHORT TERM PLAY, only a fool would give his 200,000 round challenge any credibility(?). What part of nobody, for whatever reasons, has replied to his challenge don't you understand?"

                    Here, you clearly explain, all by yourself, what the problem is in your thinking.  On the one hand, you agree that if you were to take the 200,000 round challenge, YOU WOULD LOSE!  But on the other hand, you fail to see why it is intuitively obvious why so few have accepted the challenge. (Duh...)  (At least one person did challenge either Shackleford or Bluejay, and lost.)  So you ask me to explain it.  Apparently, most people understand that over the long haul, you LOSE, even when the house only has a 5% edge, like in Roulette.  Or, like you, they feel the rules are rigged against their winning systems. Confused  And you want us to believe that it is possible to beat state lotteries, who enjoy a 50% EDGE!  I invested considerable effort, posting pretty graphs and all in my Backtesting threads to try to show you that, in the short term, there are plenty of winners AND losers, but as you lengthen the time frame, their losses eventually converge to the point dictated by the mathematical edge of the house.  To no avail.  You either don't understand the bell shaped curves I posted, or you choose to ignore them.

                    .........

                    The reason you think it's possible to win is not because you don't understand the long term odds - it appears you do.  You, like so many others, look back over the short term of lottery draws and look for patterns.  Sometimes you couple this with analyses of years of results of various games and look for differences in the frequencies of occurrence of the possible outcomes. You can't give up your belief in your ability to CONTROL your outcomes by trying to second guess the random ball machines!  No matter how loud you scream that you are not seduced by the Gambler's Fallacy, you are.  You're in love!

                    If you're not happy with Don Catlin's credentials, see if Michael Shackleford can open your eyes...

                    http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

                    Here are his credentials:

                    http://wizardofodds.com/general/

                    --Jimmy4164

                    P.S. Give it up man!

                    "On the one hand, you agree that if you were to take the 200,000 round challenge, YOU WOULD LOSE!"

                    NOT TRUE, Bluejay's rules prevent me or most short term strategies from making that bet because I'm not a system's seller. Besides he can't program a simulation where the amounts and type of bets are constantly changing and his rules allow him to weasel out of any bet he believes he might lose.

                    Bluejay's Challenge is basically intended for non-existing systems or systems like your "bet the last pick-3 number" where the probabilities and 50% house edge prohibits any long term profit. I can understand why you believe Bluejay is an expert on casino gaming but considering the fact he hasn't won a dime off his challenge, it serves no useful purpose in a casino industry demanding profits.

                    "(At least one person did challenge either Shackleford or Bluejay, and lost.)"

                    Are you talking about the same Shackleford that wrote articles about his solid Craps playing strategies one year and presented his "1 billion outcomes" challenge in another? Do you have any other collaborating evidence other than "one person in either challenge"?

                    You don't need any; I'll just roll my eyes and take your word for it.

                    "Apparently, most people understand that over the long haul, you LOSE, even when the house only has a 5% edge, like in Roulette."

                    Maybe in Europe if most of the gamblers are Roulette players, but in U.S. casinos where "most players" are slots player who can only guess at the actual house edge. The ratio of Roulette tables to slot machines is probably 1 to 1000 in most U.S. casinos.

                    "You either don't understand the bell shaped curves I posted, or you choose to ignore them."

                    It's not that I don't like Roulette, it's just don't like women with too much perfume or men who haven't bathed in a couple of weeks reaching over or around me to make their bets. Even if your bell curves proved I could make a small profit, I'm not into contact gaming.

                    "And you want us to believe that it is possible to beat state lotteries, who enjoy a 50% EDGE!"

                    I'll wait for your explanation on the $601 million the PA pick-3 paid out in the last three years. Don't know how you'll explain that one, but it sure looks like somebody is "beating" that game.

                    "You can't give up your belief in your ability to CONTROL your outcomes by trying to second guess the random ball machines!"

                    I did have success using a system playing Rolling Cash 5 using different sets of 14 numbers nightly that consistently matched at least 2 or 3 numbers with an occasional 4 number match. I didn't play numbers like 1, 17, or 21 because I thought they were due or was guessing they would be drawn, I only played them when they appeared in the group of the 14 consistent areas on my chart.

                    Making a tiny profit was just a nice side affect because I was playing to win a $200,000 plus jackpot. Accurately filing out 4 playslips with 5 combos on each playslip every day for seven weeks to make a tiny profit without ever matching 5 of my 14 number picks got tiring. Besides I was moving to KY and wasn't planning on driving 250 miles round trip every day so I could make a tiny profit playing in Ohio.

                    "No matter how loud you scream that you are not seduced by the Gambler's Fallacy, you are."

                    The real fallacy and more like hypocrisy are the advice articles written by Catlin and Shackleford for the novice gambler. If they really believe casino table games are unbeatable, they could simply tell them to play the nickle slots and bring their rabbits foot. But no, they keep on writing hoping to get a small group believing whatever they write is scripture.

                    A couple of weeks ago, you were mocking Christian beliefs and now you're defending your faith in a couple insignificant casino rag writers. Talk about a 180 degree turn! Has any of your three prophets been invited to say "Shuffle up and Deal"?


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 26, 2011, 3:25 am - IP Logged

                      "On the one hand, you agree that if you were to take the 200,000 round challenge, YOU WOULD LOSE!"

                      NOT TRUE, Bluejay's rules prevent me or most short term strategies from making that bet because I'm not a system's seller. Besides he can't program a simulation where the amounts and type of bets are constantly changing and his rules allow him to weasel out of any bet he believes he might lose.

                      Bluejay's Challenge is basically intended for non-existing systems or systems like your "bet the last pick-3 number" where the probabilities and 50% house edge prohibits any long term profit. I can understand why you believe Bluejay is an expert on casino gaming but considering the fact he hasn't won a dime off his challenge, it serves no useful purpose in a casino industry demanding profits.

                      "(At least one person did challenge either Shackleford or Bluejay, and lost.)"

                      Are you talking about the same Shackleford that wrote articles about his solid Craps playing strategies one year and presented his "1 billion outcomes" challenge in another? Do you have any other collaborating evidence other than "one person in either challenge"?

                      You don't need any; I'll just roll my eyes and take your word for it.

                      "Apparently, most people understand that over the long haul, you LOSE, even when the house only has a 5% edge, like in Roulette."

                      Maybe in Europe if most of the gamblers are Roulette players, but in U.S. casinos where "most players" are slots player who can only guess at the actual house edge. The ratio of Roulette tables to slot machines is probably 1 to 1000 in most U.S. casinos.

                      "You either don't understand the bell shaped curves I posted, or you choose to ignore them."

                      It's not that I don't like Roulette, it's just don't like women with too much perfume or men who haven't bathed in a couple of weeks reaching over or around me to make their bets. Even if your bell curves proved I could make a small profit, I'm not into contact gaming.

                      "And you want us to believe that it is possible to beat state lotteries, who enjoy a 50% EDGE!"

                      I'll wait for your explanation on the $601 million the PA pick-3 paid out in the last three years. Don't know how you'll explain that one, but it sure looks like somebody is "beating" that game.

                      "You can't give up your belief in your ability to CONTROL your outcomes by trying to second guess the random ball machines!"

                      I did have success using a system playing Rolling Cash 5 using different sets of 14 numbers nightly that consistently matched at least 2 or 3 numbers with an occasional 4 number match. I didn't play numbers like 1, 17, or 21 because I thought they were due or was guessing they would be drawn, I only played them when they appeared in the group of the 14 consistent areas on my chart.

                      Making a tiny profit was just a nice side affect because I was playing to win a $200,000 plus jackpot. Accurately filing out 4 playslips with 5 combos on each playslip every day for seven weeks to make a tiny profit without ever matching 5 of my 14 number picks got tiring. Besides I was moving to KY and wasn't planning on driving 250 miles round trip every day so I could make a tiny profit playing in Ohio.

                      "No matter how loud you scream that you are not seduced by the Gambler's Fallacy, you are."

                      The real fallacy and more like hypocrisy are the advice articles written by Catlin and Shackleford for the novice gambler. If they really believe casino table games are unbeatable, they could simply tell them to play the nickle slots and bring their rabbits foot. But no, they keep on writing hoping to get a small group believing whatever they write is scripture.

                      A couple of weeks ago, you were mocking Christian beliefs and now you're defending your faith in a couple insignificant casino rag writers. Talk about a 180 degree turn! Has any of your three prophets been invited to say "Shuffle up and Deal"?

                      Stack47,

                      You've really got it bad for that complicated and sexy GF...  It must be because she's got 14 areas of interest to you!

                      Do you actually believe that Catlin and Shackleford are not aware that the probabilities, rules, and betting limits in some [non lottery] venues don't always guarantee the house a fixed edge in all time frames?  You've got to be kidding me! 

                      "I'll wait for your explanation on the $601 million the PA pick-3 paid out in the last three years. Don't know how you'll explain that one, but it sure looks like somebody is 'beating' that game."

                      Again, you expose your innumeracy.  Why would you need anyone to explain that if the PA lottery takes in $1.2B in their Pick-3 game, the probabilities and payout schedules will undoubtedly result in the winners receiving their 50% share, or around $601M, and why would you expect it to turn out any differently?   As for how that $601M was distributed, it will conform loosely to what's described here:

                      http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2052511

                      Be sure to read the post immediately following this one to see who's "beating" the Pick-3 (or not) when they play longer.

                      "Making a tiny profit was just a nice side affect because I was playing to win a $200,000 plus jackpot. Accurately filing out 4 playslips with 5 combos on each playslip every day for seven weeks to make a tiny profit without ever matching 5 of my 14 number picks got tiring. Besides I was moving to KY and wasn't planning on driving 250 miles round trip every day so I could make a tiny profit playing in Ohio."

                      Let's see here...  In 49 draws over 7 weeks you bought 980 (49*20) Rolling Cash Five tickets.  There are 575,757 possible combos in the game you played.  Considering that it would take at least One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven (1,577) YEARS for all of them to be drawn, do you really think your 7 week "tiny" profit was anything but a tiny sliver of a segment of the area under the curve plotted in the above linked thread?  And you weren't even lucky enough to end up far enough to the right in the distribution to be one of the EXPECTED "significant" winners!  Well, at least you realized it wasn't worth the 250 mile drive.  Too bad you didn't have any friends in Ohio willing to make the purchases for you.  On second thought, it was probably better for your wallet that you didn't! 

                      When a casino floor man poo poos the work of a retired math professor and an actuary, it reminds me of the auto mechanics I've known who think they know more about designing internal combustion engines than the metallurgists, chemists, physicists, and engineers who do.

                      Give it up!

                      --Jimmy4164

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #111714
                        May 31, 2011
                        104 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 26, 2011, 4:49 am - IP Logged

                        i´ll give you an example...

                        a 4/4 box wheel size 10 will cost you: $210 dollars a 3/4 box wheel size 10 will cost you i dont know: $70 to play using all 10 numbers...

                        My question is a: a 2/4 box wheel size 8 might cost you i dont know: $12, now do you see the: $70 - $12 = $58 dollars or $210 - $12 = $98 dollars difference...do you see the $58 dollars difference...Question is Cant you take those $58 dollars difference create another wheel that might have 2/4 or several 1/4 size 8 that might cost less and attached it to the $12 wheel making it as equivalent as the: 4/4 box wheel but cheaper...

                        Seen this before....BS


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 26, 2011, 1:09 pm - IP Logged

                          Seen this before....BS

                          Smile

                          Have you ever considered that maybe these people were raised on turnips that bleed?

                          It would explain a lot...

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7318 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 26, 2011, 5:49 pm - IP Logged

                            Stack47,

                            You've really got it bad for that complicated and sexy GF...  It must be because she's got 14 areas of interest to you!

                            Do you actually believe that Catlin and Shackleford are not aware that the probabilities, rules, and betting limits in some [non lottery] venues don't always guarantee the house a fixed edge in all time frames?  You've got to be kidding me! 

                            "I'll wait for your explanation on the $601 million the PA pick-3 paid out in the last three years. Don't know how you'll explain that one, but it sure looks like somebody is 'beating' that game."

                            Again, you expose your innumeracy.  Why would you need anyone to explain that if the PA lottery takes in $1.2B in their Pick-3 game, the probabilities and payout schedules will undoubtedly result in the winners receiving their 50% share, or around $601M, and why would you expect it to turn out any differently?   As for how that $601M was distributed, it will conform loosely to what's described here:

                            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2052511

                            Be sure to read the post immediately following this one to see who's "beating" the Pick-3 (or not) when they play longer.

                            "Making a tiny profit was just a nice side affect because I was playing to win a $200,000 plus jackpot. Accurately filing out 4 playslips with 5 combos on each playslip every day for seven weeks to make a tiny profit without ever matching 5 of my 14 number picks got tiring. Besides I was moving to KY and wasn't planning on driving 250 miles round trip every day so I could make a tiny profit playing in Ohio."

                            Let's see here...  In 49 draws over 7 weeks you bought 980 (49*20) Rolling Cash Five tickets.  There are 575,757 possible combos in the game you played.  Considering that it would take at least One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven (1,577) YEARS for all of them to be drawn, do you really think your 7 week "tiny" profit was anything but a tiny sliver of a segment of the area under the curve plotted in the above linked thread?  And you weren't even lucky enough to end up far enough to the right in the distribution to be one of the EXPECTED "significant" winners!  Well, at least you realized it wasn't worth the 250 mile drive.  Too bad you didn't have any friends in Ohio willing to make the purchases for you.  On second thought, it was probably better for your wallet that you didn't! 

                            When a casino floor man poo poos the work of a retired math professor and an actuary, it reminds me of the auto mechanics I've known who think they know more about designing internal combustion engines than the metallurgists, chemists, physicists, and engineers who do.

                            Give it up!

                            --Jimmy4164

                            "Do you actually believe that Catlin and Shackleford are not aware that the probabilities, rules, and betting limits in some [non lottery] venues don't always guarantee the house a fixed edge in all time frames?"

                            Every dealer knows the rules, betting limits, and payoff odds yet you find it extraordinary that a couple of rag writers know them too. It's getting embarrassing having to explain to you thousands of people deal these games everyday and probably forgot more than your "experts" know. It's no big deal when two people know what thousands of other people know unless your gaming IQ is lower than your hat size.

                            "Considering that it would take at least One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven (1,577) YEARS for all of them to be drawn, do you really think your 7 week "tiny" profit was anything but a tiny sliver of a segment of the area under the curve plotted in the above linked thread?  "

                            You already gave us your analysis of playing the same number every night with the same bet for over 33 1/2 years and incredibly suggested a group of people would wager $3168 on 12 WBS and 4 bonus balls two to four times a week for a year. You were told by many LP members those statistics are worthless, but instead of listening and trying to actually learn something, you come up with even more worthless statistics.

                            "When a casino floor man poo poos the work of a retired math professor and an actuary, it reminds me"

                            It should remind you that you know next to nothing about watching live gambling on four to six tables 8 hours a day. While your actuaries and professors are computing the probabilities against any shooter making 15 straight passes rolling number after number in between in the next 200,000 rounds, the floormen are watching that "tiny sliver of a segment" happen and calling the cage to find out the exact amount of the thousands of dollars the winners cashed for.

                            Your experts are correct, dice and roulette balls have no memory of past outcomes, but won't mention dice and roulette balls don't always follow probability either. How many hours have you logged playing Craps or Roulette; or should I say minutes?

                              Avatar
                              Kentucky
                              United States
                              Member #32652
                              February 14, 2006
                              7318 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 26, 2011, 7:31 pm - IP Logged

                              Stack47,

                              You've really got it bad for that complicated and sexy GF...  It must be because she's got 14 areas of interest to you!

                              Do you actually believe that Catlin and Shackleford are not aware that the probabilities, rules, and betting limits in some [non lottery] venues don't always guarantee the house a fixed edge in all time frames?  You've got to be kidding me! 

                              "I'll wait for your explanation on the $601 million the PA pick-3 paid out in the last three years. Don't know how you'll explain that one, but it sure looks like somebody is 'beating' that game."

                              Again, you expose your innumeracy.  Why would you need anyone to explain that if the PA lottery takes in $1.2B in their Pick-3 game, the probabilities and payout schedules will undoubtedly result in the winners receiving their 50% share, or around $601M, and why would you expect it to turn out any differently?   As for how that $601M was distributed, it will conform loosely to what's described here:

                              http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/2052511

                              Be sure to read the post immediately following this one to see who's "beating" the Pick-3 (or not) when they play longer.

                              "Making a tiny profit was just a nice side affect because I was playing to win a $200,000 plus jackpot. Accurately filing out 4 playslips with 5 combos on each playslip every day for seven weeks to make a tiny profit without ever matching 5 of my 14 number picks got tiring. Besides I was moving to KY and wasn't planning on driving 250 miles round trip every day so I could make a tiny profit playing in Ohio."

                              Let's see here...  In 49 draws over 7 weeks you bought 980 (49*20) Rolling Cash Five tickets.  There are 575,757 possible combos in the game you played.  Considering that it would take at least One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven (1,577) YEARS for all of them to be drawn, do you really think your 7 week "tiny" profit was anything but a tiny sliver of a segment of the area under the curve plotted in the above linked thread?  And you weren't even lucky enough to end up far enough to the right in the distribution to be one of the EXPECTED "significant" winners!  Well, at least you realized it wasn't worth the 250 mile drive.  Too bad you didn't have any friends in Ohio willing to make the purchases for you.  On second thought, it was probably better for your wallet that you didn't! 

                              When a casino floor man poo poos the work of a retired math professor and an actuary, it reminds me of the auto mechanics I've known who think they know more about designing internal combustion engines than the metallurgists, chemists, physicists, and engineers who do.

                              Give it up!

                              --Jimmy4164

                              "Again, you expose your innumeracy."

                              Nope, I finally stumped you because after telling people over and over again "it's impossible for anyone to make a profit playing pick-3 games" you don't have an answer. The PA daily number game paid out $601 million in the last 3 years ($550,000 every day), but you're clueless as to who shared those enormous prizes.

                              "Rather than output the Equity remaining from $5000 after 5000 $1 bets, I converted to Prize Ratio notation"

                              Speaking of innumeracy, there were 1096 PA daily number drawings in the last 3 years (providing there were seven draws a week with no days off) and you're offering as rebuttal 5000 drawings. Where did you find 5000 PA Daily Numbers game $1 QP players who would make the same bet for 5000 drawings?

                              I knew a guy that bet $5 on the same number for almost a year and when he got to the point where he almost spent as much as he could collect, he raised his bet. Not something I'd do and I doubt many of your $1 QP betters would wager only $1 to win $500 after they were out more than $500 either.

                              A quick look in Pick-3 Forum should tell you what the average pick-3 player plays. Do you really think after posting up to 50 predictions, hundreds of players will go to their local lottery agent and ask for a $1 QP?

                              I actually applauded your efforts to show probability with your calculations and those fancy charts and graphs, but your input doesn't come close to representing any reasonable pick-3 play nor does it explain how PA paid out $601 million in $500 increments but very few players showed a profit.

                              "Too bad you didn't have any friends in Ohio willing to make the purchases for you"

                              Your lottery IQ is getting in the way of any logical thinking.

                              It took me about 10 minutes to select 14 numbers run a wheel, but emailing the combos to someone, hoping they could accurately fill out 4 playslips and make the bets 7 days week wasn't a sound idea to make a tiny 50% profit and probably have to split that with someone else. I'm not trusting anyone with a chance of error or not getting the bets in on time on the one drawing would match all 5 numbers on the same line.

                              Oh but I forgot, you thought it would be piece of cake for your Challenge players to accurately fill out 644 playslips. LMAO!