mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20147 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 9:31 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on August 19, 2011

Good luck JusCurious!

The biggest problem here for anyone trying to introduce logical thinking to people who might be willing to try to learn, is not the potential students. It is a small cabal of people with a vested interest in the propagation of innumeracy. They will resort to any and all of the most despicable tactics available to them here to try to belittle and discredit anyone with evidence that lotteries are random and their systems make no sense. Misquoting you, as was done above, is just one of the ways.

P.S. To anyone who has attacked me but in fact has no vested interest motivating them; you have my sympathies, for yours is a problem of the mind. The others have a problem of the soul!

Your logical thinking concludes that beyond buying lottery tickets, there's nothing a player can do to improve his chances of winning other than buying more lottery tickets and picking combinations using a system at best is no better than buying randomly picked combinations (quick-picks).

If you believed that then prove it by simply posting randomly picked combinations on the prediction board and when your results matched those of other top predictors reveal your method of simply picking combinations randomly. As a top predictor who doesn't use a system, your argument would be more convincing and silent those who have attacked you.

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

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2315 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 10:33 am - IP Logged

Hello, confirmedbylotteryinthe world, perhapson other planets.the basisof the lottery=The base isinthislotterycan only bemathematicallypredictto some extent60% to70%the restis randomlotteryexample49 / 6can be predictedwith confidenceis thenup to 4randomnumbers, then we havetworandomconditionsand mathematician30/70,which runssmallerFrom 49to4to4=?Afteronlytwofoulsnumbers

COLUMBUS,GA. United States Member #4924 June 3, 2004 6161 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 11:31 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 18, 2011

"Koycerin states that only the very first bet at the beginning of a cycle will truly be 50/50."

Falacies such as this always have a major flaw, usually in the premise. The logic may be sound, but results in a false conclusion because the premise is faulty. Example: If red is black, and blue is black, then red is blue. The logic here is flawless, but the premise is faulty.

The flaw in Koycerin's premise is that EVERY coin flip is the "beginning of a cycle". Whether you are reviewing the past 10; 200; or 50,000 coin flips, the NEXT coin flip will "begin a (new) cycle", so that by Koycerin's own statement, it "will truly be 50/50."

Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws.

Would one of you math wizards please explain this link dealing with bayes.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 3:04 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on August 19, 2011

Your logical thinking concludes that beyond buying lottery tickets, there's nothing a player can do to improve his chances of winning other than buying more lottery tickets and picking combinations using a system at best is no better than buying randomly picked combinations (quick-picks).

If you believed that then prove it by simply posting randomly picked combinations on the prediction board and when your results matched those of other top predictors reveal your method of simply picking combinations randomly. As a top predictor who doesn't use a system, your argument would be more convincing and silent those who have attacked you.

Check out my Pick-3 predictions. Pick-3 is my focus there.

I'm taking a different approach with the same end in mind.

The Pick-3 "Heavies" who are active in the System Forums make my point with their Lifetime Prize Ratios.

Just ask yourself why my [invariant] set of 25 three digit numbers played repeatedly in all seventy games covered at LP results in the same ROI as the heavies. As you look around you'll find that there are a lot of predictors, who, after apparently getting a few MAX Pick-3 payouts early on, chose to stop predicting in that game!

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 3:20 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 18, 2011

"Koycerin states that only the very first bet at the beginning of a cycle will truly be 50/50."

Falacies such as this always have a major flaw, usually in the premise. The logic may be sound, but results in a false conclusion because the premise is faulty. Example: If red is black, and blue is black, then red is blue. The logic here is flawless, but the premise is faulty.

The flaw in Koycerin's premise is that EVERY coin flip is the "beginning of a cycle". Whether you are reviewing the past 10; 200; or 50,000 coin flips, the NEXT coin flip will "begin a (new) cycle", so that by Koycerin's own statement, it "will truly be 50/50."

Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws.

Wrong. You took one sentence out of context without reading the whole booklet.

If you flip a coin ten times in a row, each flip is not a new cycle. You can't just make up stuff as you go along. It's a series of flips, and it's already been proven that with every flip that is going in one direction, it's always trying to balance itself out, whether it does or not in the short term. In the long term there will be a balancing act going on. But that's not Koycerin's objective. His method is designed to bet accordingly when an RND occurs and profit from it.

You have to read the entire booklet to understand what he's talking about, not just one sentence.

Stattrek provides the formula for Bayes' Theorem, but not much of an explanation. Bayes' Theorem defines a way of calculating "Conditional" probabilities. It's usually written as...

P ( A | B ) = blah blah blah...

In English, this means "The Probability of A, GIVEN that B has Already Occured." As is usually the case, Wikipedia provides an explanation more understandable to the layman:

Stattrek provides the formula for Bayes' Theorem, but not much of an explanation. Bayes' Theorem defines a way of calculating "Conditional" probabilities. It's usually written as...

P ( A | B ) = blah blah blah...

In English, this means "The Probability of A, GIVEN that B has Already Occured." As is usually the case, Wikipedia provides an explanation more understandable to the layman:

I was referring to the term random variable. When you and the other posters write about random, I get the impression there are no variables in random. Am I not reading this right?

Statistics Tutorial: Random Variables

When the numerical value of a variable is determined by a chance event, that variable is called a random variable.

Discrete. Discrete random variables take on integer values, usually the result of counting. Suppose, for example, that we flip a coin and count the number of heads. The number of heads results from a random process - flipping a coin. And the number of heads is represented by an integer value - a number between 0 and plus infinity. Therefore, the number of heads is a discrete random variable.

Continuous. Continuous random variables, in contrast, can take on any value within a range of values. For example, suppose we flip a coin many times and compute the average number of heads per flip. The average number of heads per flip results from a random process - flipping a coin. And the average number of heads per flip can take on any value between 0 and 1, even a non-integer value. Therefore, the average number of heads per flip is a continuous random variable.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7611 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 8:08 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 18, 2011

"Koycerin states that only the very first bet at the beginning of a cycle will truly be 50/50."

Falacies such as this always have a major flaw, usually in the premise. The logic may be sound, but results in a false conclusion because the premise is faulty. Example: If red is black, and blue is black, then red is blue. The logic here is flawless, but the premise is faulty.

The flaw in Koycerin's premise is that EVERY coin flip is the "beginning of a cycle". Whether you are reviewing the past 10; 200; or 50,000 coin flips, the NEXT coin flip will "begin a (new) cycle", so that by Koycerin's own statement, it "will truly be 50/50."

Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws.

"The flaw in Koycerin's premise is that EVERY coin flip is the "beginning of a cycle". Whether you are reviewing the past 10; 200; or 50,000 coin flips, the NEXT coin flip will "begin a (new) cycle", so that by Koycerin's own statement, it "will truly be 50/50."

Since you mentioned 10 or more outcomes, you have to consider the probability that heads and/or tails will appear multiple times in consecutive trials. You're making it appear as though every other trial will be heads, which is nonsense.

"Yes, LOOKING BACK, you can see "patterns" in the results of random draws, but those past draws have no way to affect future random draws."

Who said past patterns ever affected future outcomes?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7611 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 9:23 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dr san on August 18, 2011

STACK47Hello, youcould dothe followingsimulation ofalottery49 / 6or other=This is howto getthelast resultgoing back up toabout 100resultsin aseparatelist.Afterdrawingmore than100, orthe listisamust havesevencolumnseach withone hundredresults(this valuecan varyfrom 100)then putstraightthelists ofsweepstakes7Earlier(of coursetends to bealottery thathas alreadymade??sincea 1000draw)Well,this camethe idea thatwhen you takethe lastdrawandmarkwherethe drawhas passed theregistrationof theresultby 100pairingsavezgets outalargegroupwithouteventhelotnumberone, puttingin a straight line, notjustnumbermatchesthe100linesin the mirrorwill have6numbers,or seeon the diagonal,requiredto see

Dr. San,

Past drawing results can give you false information and "hot or cold" numbers are a good example. Using RJ's OCL 6/49 as an example, there are 5 numbers that have only been drawn once or twice in the last 50 drawings. Because of that someone might decide to throw out those 5 numbers and make it a 6/44 game for analyzing, but there is a 49,52% probability at least one of those "cold" numbers will be drawn.

You could break down OCL into seven 100 drawing periods because it has 716 results. In the last 100 drawings 25 numbers appeared at least 12 times and 24 numbers less than the average of 12. Six of those numbers appeared less than 8 times and five at least 18 times. The six 100 drawing periods before that will probably have similar results. You might find where 20 or less of the numbers consistently matched 4 or 5 numbers with a few 6 number matches too. The problem is finding a method to choose which 20 or less numbers BEFORE the next 50 drawings.

It's possible because Brad Duke used a method of tracking frequency of the past 50 drawings to win a $220.3 million PB jackpot. However your mileage might vary.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7611 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 10:17 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by joker17 on August 19, 2011

Wrong. You took one sentence out of context without reading the whole booklet.

If you flip a coin ten times in a row, each flip is not a new cycle. You can't just make up stuff as you go along. It's a series of flips, and it's already been proven that with every flip that is going in one direction, it's always trying to balance itself out, whether it does or not in the short term. In the long term there will be a balancing act going on. But that's not Koycerin's objective. His method is designed to bet accordingly when an RND occurs and profit from it.

You have to read the entire booklet to understand what he's talking about, not just one sentence.

Most Baccarat players will bet on the streak or won't bet at all. A tiny streak of three will give a player a $7 to $1 payoff parlaying and six in a row, $63 to $1.

The Wizard of Odds will tell you it's better to ignore even the tiny streaks and always bet on the Bank every hand and pay a 5% commission on every even money win. To prove it, the "Wiz" ran a simulation incredibly believing 4,998,398,275,503,360 hands of Baccarat have been dealt in the history of the game. What he didn't mention was that players betting just $1 on the Bank on every one of the 5 quadrillion hands would pay $114 trillion in commissions.

*edited to add: that's an incredible 4,754,945 Baccarat tables dealing 120 hands an hour, non stop 24 hours a day for 1000 years.

Michigan United States Member #115341 August 18, 2011 8 Posts Offline

Posted: August 19, 2011, 11:28 pm - IP Logged

Okay, three Genius mathematicians, each using the same system, Walk Into a Bar.

Two of them head for the bar, while the third overhears two guys announcing they will begin flipping a coin and track the result. He watches and records every flip for an hour, before the second Genius mathematician happens upon the scene, and also begins tracking the results. They both track and record the results for another hour, before the third Genius mathematician appears, and sees what is going on.

The third Genius mathematician says: “Since this is the first flip of the series, the odds are clearly 50/50. The second Genius mathematician spouts indignantly: “I have been watching for an hour, and the odds clearly favor a ‘Tails’ outcome.” The first Genius mathematician laughs derisively and declares defiantly: I have watched for two hours, and the next flip has an overwhelming chance of being a ‘heads’ outcome.

Of these three Genius mathematicians predicting the outcome of the same coin flip, which one is correct?

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1203 Posts Offline

Posted: August 20, 2011, 12:19 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 19, 2011

Okay, three Genius mathematicians, each using the same system, Walk Into a Bar.

Two of them head for the bar, while the third overhears two guys announcing they will begin flipping a coin and track the result. He watches and records every flip for an hour, before the second Genius mathematician happens upon the scene, and also begins tracking the results. They both track and record the results for another hour, before the third Genius mathematician appears, and sees what is going on.

The third Genius mathematician says: “Since this is the first flip of the series, the odds are clearly 50/50. The second Genius mathematician spouts indignantly: “I have been watching for an hour, and the odds clearly favor a ‘Tails’ outcome.” The first Genius mathematician laughs derisively and declares defiantly: I have watched for two hours, and the next flip has an overwhelming chance of being a ‘heads’ outcome.

Of these three Genius mathematicians predicting the outcome of the same coin flip, which one is correct?

Hi,

I'll give it a try...*S*

The mechanical odds of the next draw is the same for all three...50/50

The one who stands the best chance based on probabilty will be the one who watched/tracked for the longest period of time. That is because the sample size is larger and should produce a more accurate picture of what is probably going to happen.

The catch on the probabilty side is that it good for bulk events, but has trouble with individual events (like the next draw). Just my opinion.

Best of luck. *S*

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find an acorn.

There is no elevator to success, you will have to take the stairs.

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1203 Posts Offline

Posted: August 20, 2011, 12:29 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on August 19, 2011

Dr. San,

Past drawing results can give you false information and "hot or cold" numbers are a good example. Using RJ's OCL 6/49 as an example, there are 5 numbers that have only been drawn once or twice in the last 50 drawings. Because of that someone might decide to throw out those 5 numbers and make it a 6/44 game for analyzing, but there is a 49,52% probability at least one of those "cold" numbers will be drawn.

You could break down OCL into seven 100 drawing periods because it has 716 results. In the last 100 drawings 25 numbers appeared at least 12 times and 24 numbers less than the average of 12. Six of those numbers appeared less than 8 times and five at least 18 times. The six 100 drawing periods before that will probably have similar results. You might find where 20 or less of the numbers consistently matched 4 or 5 numbers with a few 6 number matches too. The problem is finding a method to choose which 20 or less numbers BEFORE the next 50 drawings.

It's possible because Brad Duke used a method of tracking frequency of the past 50 drawings to win a $220.3 million PB jackpot. However your mileage might vary.

Hi Stack47,

Let me give you a different point of view. There is nothing false about past drawing results. They are what they are and must be delt with accordingly.

Secondly, if someone decides to ignore a 49.52% stat, then, where is the problem. The person with hunches or the math?

Best of Luck

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find an acorn.

There is no elevator to success, you will have to take the stairs.

United States Member #75358 June 1, 2009 5345 Posts Offline

Posted: August 20, 2011, 12:50 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by JusCurious on August 19, 2011

Okay, three Genius mathematicians, each using the same system, Walk Into a Bar.

Two of them head for the bar, while the third overhears two guys announcing they will begin flipping a coin and track the result. He watches and records every flip for an hour, before the second Genius mathematician happens upon the scene, and also begins tracking the results. They both track and record the results for another hour, before the third Genius mathematician appears, and sees what is going on.

The third Genius mathematician says: “Since this is the first flip of the series, the odds are clearly 50/50. The second Genius mathematician spouts indignantly: “I have been watching for an hour, and the odds clearly favor a ‘Tails’ outcome.” The first Genius mathematician laughs derisively and declares defiantly: I have watched for two hours, and the next flip has an overwhelming chance of being a ‘heads’ outcome.

Of these three Genius mathematicians predicting the outcome of the same coin flip, which one is correct?

The third one who says the first flip of the series is truly 50/50 is the correct one. After the first flip, one must decide when an RND is occuring and look for a pattern verification. Once a pattern verification is established, then he can bet accordingly.

Below is a simplified example of pattern verification. It doesn't work everytime, but it comes close. We know that 1x4=4 and 2x4=8 and 3x4=12 and 5x4=20, but wait, we left out one, 4x4, suppose we don't don't know the answer to 4x4. We do know that whatever the answer is, that it's more than 3x4 and less than 5x4. The answer must be between 13 and 19. Rather than just make a guess, we will average the difference so we will be close to what the real answer might be. Add the 13 to the 19 and we get 32. We added two numbers so we divided the answer by two for the average of...guess what....16...Did you just see what we just did?.....We found the answer to 4x4 without knowing what the answer was.

In the above example, something else should've been discovered. Do you see how past results foretold future results? And how the correct "Pattern" discovered the problem for which we had no answer?

The above was a simplified example, but Koycerin's RND occurence, pattern verification, direction of pattern, and betting accordingly is slightly more complicated, but acheivable with practice.

There are professional gamblers who make a living in Vegas and other gambling facilities looking for RNDs to occur and bet accordingly.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: August 20, 2011, 12:57 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by CARBOB on August 19, 2011

I was referring to the term random variable. When you and the other posters write about random, I get the impression there are no variables in random. Am I not reading this right?

Statistics Tutorial: Random Variables

When the numerical value of a variable is determined by a chance event, that variable is called a random variable.

Discrete. Discrete random variables take on integer values, usually the result of counting. Suppose, for example, that we flip a coin and count the number of heads. The number of heads results from a random process - flipping a coin. And the number of heads is represented by an integer value - a number between 0 and plus infinity. Therefore, the number of heads is a discrete random variable.

Continuous. Continuous random variables, in contrast, can take on any value within a range of values. For example, suppose we flip a coin many times and compute the average number of heads per flip. The average number of heads per flip results from a random process - flipping a coin. And the average number of heads per flip can take on any value between 0 and 1, even a non-integer value. Therefore, the average number of heads per flip is a continuous random variable.

(You mentioned Bayes in your earlier post.)

"I was referring to the term random variable. When you and the other posters write about random, I get the impression there are no variables in random. Am I not reading this right?"

Saying "in random" implies you have a perception of the definition of "random" that is not consistent with that of mathematicians. "Random" is an adjective in this context. Nothing can be "in" random. If you look up definitions of "random" and "variable" and look again at stattrek's definitions of "discrete" and "continuous," I think you will find that, "When the numerical value of a variable is determined by a chance event, that variable is called a random variable." is a pretty good definition!

To get you started:

A "variable" in math is a value that changes (or can change) within a specified range, as opposed to a "constant," which is invariant.

y = 2 * x + 4.7 ( x > 0 )

... defines two variables, x and y, and one constant, 4.7.

x is an independent variable with an infinite range greater than zero.

y is a dependent variable, dependent upon the value of x.