bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2126 Posts Offline

Posted: June 23, 2013, 10:27 am - IP Logged

Now the math fratal has been trying to demonstrate that it is possible to find patterns in the pricing. With regard to gambling, theory classical / modern states that the draw in lotto, roulette, cards, dice, etc.., Does not develop standards that may give an advantage to the player / gambler. This theory argues that the succession of numbers drawn matches exactly the path that the famous dust particle describes in "random". Now, as with the price of the financial asset, the math postmodern argues that there is strong evidence of the existence of patterns in time series of draws, especially in continuous time.

Cebu City Philippines Member #143416 June 2, 2013 27 Posts Offline

Posted: June 27, 2013, 6:23 am - IP Logged

its not called math, its sumthin else. not alot of people could comprehend, in laymans term if you can comprehend waves then do like numbers do. cheers yall

"Predicting lotto numbers is a pointless exercise. Because lotto numbers are truly random, my guess is as good as yours, and any number picked is equally likely to win. Yet, some lotto players seem to believe that they can predict lotto numbers from previous draws. In this paper, we show that lotto numbers picked are systematically related to previous draws in the aggregate and that some players are particularly prone to the belief that lotto numbers can be predicted ... We show that the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'hot hand fallacy' occur in lotto gambling, that the fallacies are systematically related, and that being prone to these biases is costly. For example, players prone to the gambler's fallacy spend 1.2 EUR more in an average week than other players..."

"Predicting lotto numbers is a pointless exercise. Because lotto numbers are truly random, my guess is as good as yours, and any number picked is equally likely to win. Yet, some lotto players seem to believe that they can predict lotto numbers from previous draws. In this paper, we show that lotto numbers picked are systematically related to previous draws in the aggregate and that some players are particularly prone to the belief that lotto numbers can be predicted ... We show that the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'hot hand fallacy' occur in lotto gambling, that the fallacies are systematically related, and that being prone to these biases is costly. For example, players prone to the gambler's fallacy spend 1.2 EUR more in an average week than other players..."

--Jimmy4164

Hi jimmy4164,

Your point is well taken and is why my position on this thread is that a new math or at least variations of current math knowledge will have to occur before a really good winning prediction system can be generated. The gamblers fallacy is true given the current state of mathematics. Of course, saying that you can't do it, that it is a pointless exercise, and a throw in the towel attitude does nothing to find creative solutions to the problem. I guess it makes for an easy argument for you to use over and over. As for me, math is a science and is always evolving. If the common knowledge repetively shows that a method doesn'nt work, it is time to discover different methods that will. I guess some people have a can do attitude while others don't.

Thanks for your reply, it is a good reality check to assess whether you are walking down failed paths that others have taken. *S*

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

Your point is well taken and is why my position on this thread is that a new math or at least variations of current math knowledge will have to occur before a really good winning prediction system can be generated. The gamblers fallacy is true given the current state of mathematics. Of course, saying that you can't do it, that it is a pointless exercise, and a throw in the towel attitude does nothing to find creative solutions to the problem. I guess it makes for an easy argument for you to use over and over. As for me, math is a science and is always evolving. If the common knowledge repetively shows that a method doesn'nt work, it is time to discover different methods that will. I guess some people have a can do attitude while others don't.

Thanks for your reply, it is a good reality check to assess whether you are walking down failed paths that others have taken. *S*

JKING,

Sorry I missed your reply - been dealing with a triple teaming effort in another thread.

"The gamblers fallacy is true given the current state of mathematics."

The gambler's fallacy challenges the physical realities of the mechanisms that determine the winning numbers, not any fundamental principal of mathematics. (Ping-Pong Balls have no memories.) The mathematics required to describe lottery games is elementary. After exhausting all conventional and reasonable methods to prove that there exists a mathematical method to defy the observed and well understood physical and logical realities of the games, to fall back on the hope that there must be a "New Math" out there that will solve the problem, is very much akin to what is commonly referred to as, "grasping at straws."

I appreciate your point JKING but believe me, lottery calculations are NOT "Rocket Science!"

United States Member #124493 March 14, 2012 7023 Posts Offline

Posted: July 7, 2013, 3:39 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on July 6, 2013

JKING,

Sorry I missed your reply - been dealing with a triple teaming effort in another thread.

"The gamblers fallacy is true given the current state of mathematics."

The gambler's fallacy challenges the physical realities of the mechanisms that determine the winning numbers, not any fundamental principal of mathematics. (Ping-Pong Balls have no memories.) The mathematics required to describe lottery games is elementary. After exhausting all conventional and reasonable methods to prove that there exists a mathematical method to defy the observed and well understood physical and logical realities of the games, to fall back on the hope that there must be a "New Math" out there that will solve the problem, is very much akin to what is commonly referred to as, "grasping at straws."

I appreciate your point JKING but believe me, lottery calculations are NOT "Rocket Science!"

--Jimmy4164

I appreciate your point JKING but believe me, lottery calculations are NOT "Rocket Science!"

p

Perhaps more like brain surgery?

I dont think Jimmy believes in a gentle approach for Lottery Players.

I think he wants to see all lotto"scientists" and lottery "calculators" lobotimized.

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1185 Posts Offline

Posted: July 14, 2013, 5:56 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on July 6, 2013

JKING,

Sorry I missed your reply - been dealing with a triple teaming effort in another thread.

"The gamblers fallacy is true given the current state of mathematics."

The gambler's fallacy challenges the physical realities of the mechanisms that determine the winning numbers, not any fundamental principal of mathematics. (Ping-Pong Balls have no memories.) The mathematics required to describe lottery games is elementary. After exhausting all conventional and reasonable methods to prove that there exists a mathematical method to defy the observed and well understood physical and logical realities of the games, to fall back on the hope that there must be a "New Math" out there that will solve the problem, is very much akin to what is commonly referred to as, "grasping at straws."

I appreciate your point JKING but believe me, lottery calculations are NOT "Rocket Science!"

--Jimmy4164

A simple question....

Why, if there are no mechanisms to determe the next winning numbers, do casinos ban all calculating and computing devices?

By the way, those straws are paying very well lately. *S*

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

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2126 Posts Offline

Posted: August 12, 2013, 2:35 pm - IP Logged

how can you use it to predict in separdo = digits, numbers, twos and threes in their positions? poosivel is using vertical positions of each crossing with the horizontal scan (normal)? before this analysis comes after the departureof certain patterns that leave 80th 100% of the time? menoria not have the numbers, but it has positions, as the program, look at this? if it predicts the numbers that go repeating already be good

Edinburgh United Kingdom Member #97833 September 24, 2010 41 Posts Offline

Posted: August 13, 2013, 3:42 am - IP Logged

Hi turbine, How can this program help us? The program looks very interesting. How can we put our real lotto numbers in the program instead of random numbers. Thanks for the quick reply. Goodbye.

Zdravstvuy turbine, Kak eta programma pomozhet nam? Programma vyglyadit ochen' interesno. Kak my mozhem postavit' nashi real'nyye nomerov loto v programme vmesto sluchaynykh chisel. Spasibo za bystryy otvet. Do svidaniya.