Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 7:22 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# A Wheel Question...

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

 Page 3 of 3

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 27, 2011, 6:34 pm - IP Logged

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!

Well Mr Stack47,

you have no shortage of examples of your fallacious reasoning to display for the world to see.  Some day, you just might realize that it makes absolutely no difference whether you bet on the same numbers every day for the rest of your life, choose them with a "system," or simply buy QuickPicks.  Over the long haul, your results will be the same.

The best example you give of your innumeracy is your confusion over the fact that the PA lottery pays out 50% of its gross in its Pick-3, resulting in payouts totalling \$601M over 3 years.  Somehow, you seem to think this proves that Pick-3 system play results in big winners. (What?)  I have no reason to expect that repetition will make it sink in, but here goes!  I prefer to quote you from your earlier post:

"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."

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:

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

I know you don't accept this distribution, which is based on a simulation and assumes the draws are random.  But until you can produce evidence that the actual distribution over 3 years looks any different, I'm sticking with this one!  Will you ever see that, %wise, the Prize Ratios of shorter trials have more [big] winners and [big] losers than the longer (useless to you) trials?  Have you spent any time scrutinizing the results at the above link?  If you do, it just might occur to you that randomness is capable of producing winners, even lifetime winners!  (No SYSTEM required!)  If this "lightbulb" ever lights up for you, you are going to be embarrassed.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  I just added another hash mark next to Stack47 on my list of people here with a possible

VESTED INTEREST IN PROPAGATING INNUMERACY AMONG LP READERS!

If what I'm alluding to is true, it would easily explain how a seemingly intelligent person can continue to fervently defend such ridiculous fallacies!  Of course, there always is that possibility, as Mr. Paulos pointed out, that you are just another good example of an otherwise intelligent person who happens to be innumerate.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 28, 2011, 10:14 pm - IP Logged

Well Mr Stack47,

you have no shortage of examples of your fallacious reasoning to display for the world to see.  Some day, you just might realize that it makes absolutely no difference whether you bet on the same numbers every day for the rest of your life, choose them with a "system," or simply buy QuickPicks.  Over the long haul, your results will be the same.

The best example you give of your innumeracy is your confusion over the fact that the PA lottery pays out 50% of its gross in its Pick-3, resulting in payouts totalling \$601M over 3 years.  Somehow, you seem to think this proves that Pick-3 system play results in big winners. (What?)  I have no reason to expect that repetition will make it sink in, but here goes!  I prefer to quote you from your earlier post:

"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."

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:

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

I know you don't accept this distribution, which is based on a simulation and assumes the draws are random.  But until you can produce evidence that the actual distribution over 3 years looks any different, I'm sticking with this one!  Will you ever see that, %wise, the Prize Ratios of shorter trials have more [big] winners and [big] losers than the longer (useless to you) trials?  Have you spent any time scrutinizing the results at the above link?  If you do, it just might occur to you that randomness is capable of producing winners, even lifetime winners!  (No SYSTEM required!)  If this "lightbulb" ever lights up for you, you are going to be embarrassed.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  I just added another hash mark next to Stack47 on my list of people here with a possible

VESTED INTEREST IN PROPAGATING INNUMERACY AMONG LP READERS!

If what I'm alluding to is true, it would easily explain how a seemingly intelligent person can continue to fervently defend such ridiculous fallacies!  Of course, there always is that possibility, as Mr. Paulos pointed out, that you are just another good example of an otherwise intelligent person who happens to be innumerate.

"The best example you give of your innumeracy is your confusion over the fact that the PA lottery pays out 50% of its gross in its Pick-3, resulting in payouts totalling \$601M over 3 years. Somehow, you seem to think this proves that Pick-3 system play results in big winners".

And

"As for how that \$601M was distributed, it will conform loosely to what's described here:"

Because of the way you did it, your charts show what's expected of a 50,000 ticket raffle that's held 5000 times; fifty players will have the winning number in every drawing and collect \$500 each. From that you used probability to determine how many players would lose, break even or win.

"Loosely"? You're not even close.

The PA pick-3 is not a raffle where the amount bet on each number and the payoff is evenly distributed so your data means nothing. When you did your thing on the 33 1/2 years evening draw you should have noticed the three digit numbers were not evenly distributed so a like number of QPs would have a similar distribution. The three year figure averages \$550,000 a day in payouts but the Wednesday evening drawing only paid out \$101,000 and Thursday's midday paid \$119,000. Your raffle chart would show \$275,000 each and every drawing with 550 players each winning \$500.

"I know you don't accept this distribution"

The sad part is, you not only accept it, but are trying to pass it off as real lottery play statistics hoping nobody else will notice you're using simple eighth grade math. A real pick-3 drawing with a \$25,000 payoff has over 300 winning tickets. Many players just play 50 cent boxes and some play front pair or back. Yes I understand all your bets were \$1 straight, but that diluted the result even more.

"But until you can produce evidence that the actual distribution over 3 years looks any different"

My evidence is the fact PA paid our \$601 million in the last three years that payoff is large enough for thousands of players to make a profit and for hundreds to make a nice profit. But you keep preaching it's impossible for anyone to win.

"Of the 50,000 "People" who played for 13.7 years..."

And they all bought a \$1 dollar raffle ticket in each drawing!

"Have you spent any time scrutinizing the results at the above link?"

Of course I did and came to the conclusion it's based on a structured raffle with fifty \$500 winners in every drawing.

Accept the fact you don't understand pick-3 players and can't explain how PA paid out \$601 million with very few players showing a profit.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2011, 12:47 am - IP Logged

You are very confused Stack47.

No, you have not closely examined the results of my simulations and the accompanying discussions.  If you had, you would have read multiple statements I have made in [what was obviously] futile attempts to help you see that IT IS POSSIBLE TO WIN, WITH OR WITHOUT THE HELP OF A SYSTEM!!!

Here is just one quote of mine from the link you claim you've taken and studied.  Here's the link again.

Jimmy4164: "What I hope you are beginning to see is that randomness can result in big losers AND big winners!  And this is all possible with, or without, a system..."

I also suspect that you never understood and accepted JadeLottery's simulation AND proof that the expected value of 10 tickets in one draw are the same as 1 ticket in 10 draws.

I know of no other way to help you understand that when \$1.2B worth of PA Daily Number tickets are sold, 50% of the take is paid back to the winners, and the prizes range from \$40 to \$500, the distribution of those winnings will look loosely like the graphs from my simulations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand, but this is turning out to be a major waste of my time.

Good night, and good luck!

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2011, 6:33 pm - IP Logged

You are very confused Stack47.

No, you have not closely examined the results of my simulations and the accompanying discussions.  If you had, you would have read multiple statements I have made in [what was obviously] futile attempts to help you see that IT IS POSSIBLE TO WIN, WITH OR WITHOUT THE HELP OF A SYSTEM!!!

Here is just one quote of mine from the link you claim you've taken and studied.  Here's the link again.

Jimmy4164: "What I hope you are beginning to see is that randomness can result in big losers AND big winners!  And this is all possible with, or without, a system..."

I also suspect that you never understood and accepted JadeLottery's simulation AND proof that the expected value of 10 tickets in one draw are the same as 1 ticket in 10 draws.

I know of no other way to help you understand that when \$1.2B worth of PA Daily Number tickets are sold, 50% of the take is paid back to the winners, and the prizes range from \$40 to \$500, the distribution of those winnings will look loosely like the graphs from my simulations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand, but this is turning out to be a major waste of my time.

Good night, and good luck!

--Jimmy4164

The majority of your threads are you posting links to articles mostly from people that lottery players never heard of. From your poll, it looked like several people were interesting in backtesting systems using your simulation, but you failed to deliver. The best you could come up with was a semi structured raffle game and you gave no explanation of the total prize payoff.

It looks like 1.65% of the players made a profit collecting about \$5 million out of a total prize pool of \$125 million and another 1012 collected \$5 million by breaking even. Are the readers suppose to guess what happened to the other \$115 million?

"Jimmy4164: "What I hope you are beginning to see is that randomness can result in big losers AND big winners!  And this is all possible with, or without, a system..."

Maybe it was because Garyo made the comment "The output screen is lacking any explanation." so you ignored it, but Gary was right and you offered zero follow-up. At best it looks like 4 players got a 50% return on a wager that lasted 13 1/2 years. But to you, they were "big winners".

Garyo made another comment: "These 50,000 people are not all playing the same game! The way the program is written it runs 5000 draws for person one, then 5000 draws for person 2, 5000 more for person 3, all the way to 50,000."

If you're trying to use your simulation as an explanation for PA's \$601 million payoff, you really need to review how they draws their winning numbers and how the payoffs are distributed. Believe it not, they don't hold individual drawings for every \$1 bet like your crude simulation program did.

"I also suspect that you never understood and accepted JadeLottery's simulation AND proof that the expected value of 10 tickets in one draw are the same as 1 ticket in 10 draws."

Jade asked "If you had 10 bucks to bet would you bet \$1 on 10 drawings or \$10 on 1 drawing?" without being game specific. When the topic drifted to pick-5 games, I said "betting \$1 ten times will probably win this poll" and it did by a 2 to 1 margin.

There was a comment addressed to you too "Thanks for your efforts to help me understand Doug's logic but the above scenario wasn't in the question." The same is true each time you try to pawn off a link to your useless simulation statistics to answer my PA \$601 million payoff question.

You have been on this board long enough to know the majority is looking for helpful ways to better play lottery games. Even your Casino City Times math experts understand their readers have already made the decision to gamble and offer helpful tips.

When are you going to get with the program, Jimmy?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 29, 2011, 10:09 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says, "When are you going to get with the program, Jimmy?"

I should be asking you this question, because...

Since you have a Platinum membership, you can make twice as many predictions as me, so it won't take you long to catch up in terms of dollars bet so we can see how YOUR distribution of Pick-3 winnings derived from "systematic" play compares to my fixed selections.  I haven't found anyone in the BLACK with \$100K or more invested but, of course, they surely don't have your skills.

Are you game?

Come on, impress everybody!  It shouldn't be hard for you to beat me; I'm only batting in the 50% range!

Until you've put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, I must repeat my earlier feeling; you are a major waste of my time!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  If you think you might be able to get some "inside" help in this endeavor, be aware that I am not the only one who will be recording every last Pick-3 prediction you make, before the draws!

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 30, 2011, 12:43 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 says, "When are you going to get with the program, Jimmy?"

I should be asking you this question, because...

Since you have a Platinum membership, you can make twice as many predictions as me, so it won't take you long to catch up in terms of dollars bet so we can see how YOUR distribution of Pick-3 winnings derived from "systematic" play compares to my fixed selections.  I haven't found anyone in the BLACK with \$100K or more invested but, of course, they surely don't have your skills.

Are you game?

Come on, impress everybody!  It shouldn't be hard for you to beat me; I'm only batting in the 50% range!

Until you've put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, I must repeat my earlier feeling; you are a major waste of my time!

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  If you think you might be able to get some "inside" help in this endeavor, be aware that I am not the only one who will be recording every last Pick-3 prediction you make, before the draws!

"I haven't found anyone in the BLACK with \$100K or more invested but, of course, they surely don't have your skills."

That statement sure sums up your lottery IQ! Players don't get a \$1 pick-3 QP every night for 13 1/2 and won't be wagering over \$100,000 in a lifetime. As for my prediction status, 281 lifetime total doesn't qualify me as a prediction fanatic.

You probably read Bluejay's challenge while in Vegas after losing your \$20 gambling allowance and decided to try it out on LP. I can't believe after all this time on LP you still can't make the distinction between a guaranteed system and sound betting strategies. Most of the casino game strategies are for short term play like the four days and three nights most people usually spend in Vegas. Most lottery systems are statistical programs that offer players a large number of ways to analyze and choose numbers to play. The only playing strategy guarantee is when those numbers are drawn.

I have no idea of why Pumpi needed a 3 if 4 pick-4 wheel or how he plans on using it, but it didn't cost me a dime to give him one.

"Until you've put your money where your mouth is, so to speak"

You sound like VD who believed imaginary money is the same as betting real money. On the other hand, you did run a year's worth statistics on a large number of twice a week \$3168 imaginary bets and 13 1/2 years of 50,000 imaginary \$5000 bets on 50,000 imaginary lottery games.

Do your bizarre avatars represent the imaginary world you live in, Jimmy?

 Page 3 of 3