Welcome Guest
You last visited December 3, 2016, 5:30 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Why Do Mathematicians Consider The Lottery Random

Topic closed. 261 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Boney526.

 Page 7 of 18

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 1:29 am - IP Logged

This person plays online. This person plays all the remaining p-4 numbers that haven't hit straight in a certain state. That's about 6,500 combos at 25 cents a piece, then this person plays additional smaller pools that most of the time contain the winning number in most of the 3 or 4 pools, which means this person wins multiple times when this person wins. This person has lost too, no one can win everytime, but the wins obviously have outnumbered the losses. In fact, just about a month and a half ago this person lost 20,000 bucks, but it's rare. This is why one must have a nice bankroll to acheive what this person does.

I think if you dig deeper into your friend's methods, you will discover a variation on the Martingale.

The Martingale is explored in detail near the top of this page...

Remember, I said "variation."

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 1:29 am - IP Logged

I think if you dig deeper into your friend's methods, you will discover a variation on the Martingale.

The Martingale is explored in detail near the top of this page...

Remember, I said "variation."

Great site.  I absolutely love that site, it's helped me so much.

United States
Member #75358
June 1, 2009
5345 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 1:32 am - IP Logged

I think if you dig deeper into your friend's methods, you will discover a variation on the Martingale.

The Martingale is explored in detail near the top of this page...

Remember, I said "variation."

Absolutely wrong. He uses nothing of the sort. He simply plays the remaining p-4 numbers that haven't showed since the inception of the game in straight form, in addition to smaller pools created by programs from a certain site.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 1:40 am - IP Logged

Absolutely wrong. He uses nothing of the sort. He simply plays the remaining p-4 numbers that haven't showed since the inception of the game in straight form, in addition to smaller pools created by programs from a certain site.

In that case, I think it's safe to say that your friend is a firm believer in the Gambler's Fallacy, and he's been lucky!  If he's still ahead after the \$20K loss, it would behoove him to take a break from the action.  Here is one of the best exposes of that dreamer's tonic...

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html

United States
Member #75358
June 1, 2009
5345 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 1:55 am - IP Logged

Like I said to Boney, he must be the luckiest person on Earth of ALL time. 10 months or more now, winning 80% of every draw....That's one draw a day in the state this person plays in, 10 months in a row, 30 days times 10 months, at 80% if not more but playing it conservative estimate, that's 300 draws of which 80% is 240 draws in the 10 months...Yeah, real lucky guy...

Looney Tunes Folks...

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 2:23 am - IP Logged

Wow Okay I'm done here.

Actually one thing.  Stars aren't actually the same thing as the sun.  YOU HAVE TO PROVE ME WRONG I DON'T HAVE PROVE ANYTHING.

The fact is - That the burden of proof is one way - that's why the majority believe what I believe.  That the Lottery is only "beatable" by luck.

So now, I don't stand in the unproven.  Mathemticians that work for Slot machine developers and Casinos have already proven wrong EVERY SINGLE wagering system presented to them.  I don't know if they've done the method you're referring to, but the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, and anyone else who believes in them, not on the people who's models have reliably worked for 100s of years.

You can't just make something up, or read it somewhere, and say the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove that it's false.

I really am done now.  If you believe the burden of proof is on me to prove thats some UNPROVEN system is false, than go ahead and believe in your wild fantasy.

At least JARASAN said "I believe" that the lottery is beatable through a system.  Not that I have to prove it's not.

BTW - if you explain the system to me, then I'll go ahead and see if the math is simple enough for me to disprove.  Like I said, I'm not a mathemtician, so chances are I won't be able to work out the calculation.

But if you want somebody who CAN prove your system CORRECT or FALSE, I'll be happy to point you towards someone with the resources, and ability.  But something tells me you don't want a mathemetical test of your wagering system.

Boney526,

"So now, I don't stand in the unproven.  Mathemticians that work for Slot machine developers and Casinos have already proven wrong EVERY SINGLE wagering system presented to them.  I don't know if they've done the method you're referring to, but the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, and anyone else who believes in them, not on the people who's models have reliably worked for 100s of years."

There are some here who will never accept it, I think because their psychological NEED to believe otherwise is too strong.  All that can be hoped for is that efforts such as yours at least manage to reach a few readers, prompting them to study further.

--Jimmy4164

Harbinger
D.C./MD.
United States
Member #44103
July 30, 2006
5583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 7:36 am - IP Logged

Boney526,

"So now, I don't stand in the unproven.  Mathemticians that work for Slot machine developers and Casinos have already proven wrong EVERY SINGLE wagering system presented to them.  I don't know if they've done the method you're referring to, but the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, and anyone else who believes in them, not on the people who's models have reliably worked for 100s of years."

There are some here who will never accept it, I think because their psychological NEED to believe otherwise is too strong.  All that can be hoped for is that efforts such as yours at least manage to reach a few readers, prompting them to study further.

--Jimmy4164

Boney and Gladys you are stuck in the flat land.

Gladys,  you NEED psychoanalysis to determine why you are such a dilated wrecktal orifice in this dimension.  You always have to throw in that little dig you moron.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 9:25 am - IP Logged

I love it when they resort to name calling when presented with evidence.

Harbinger
D.C./MD.
United States
Member #44103
July 30, 2006
5583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 9:53 am - IP Logged

Look here Ms. Bone lover can't leave the topic like you said you would,  your reading comprehension is  Pre K..  You have shown nothing new.  We have learned nothing from you..  Gladys went here first with the psychological insult crap.

Gladys and you should PM each other and shower each other with your vast and deep understanding of random crap.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 10:16 am - IP Logged

That's not an insult, it's part of how the brain works,  I've been guilty of similar things plenty of times.  Fine I've got work anyway so I am done.  You know, at first I thought Joker was immature, and you just had a differing view on these matters.

Now I see that you're both immature - because anyone who can't have a debate about simple stuff like this, which IMHO - I shouldn't need to explain - without devolving into calling people who agree with the current accepted models moron, dimwits, etc. really need to grow up.

So both of you  - grow up - I told Joker I'd continue the conversation if he stopped turning into a flame fest - and that goes for you to.  If you can't help youself but to call somebody a moron for pointing towards the Gamblers Fallacy - or tell me my reading comprehension if pre-K because I ask for proof then I can't see why anyone would want to have a decent conversation with you.

Actually I'd say that's more Pre-K, but whatever, like I said - I'll continue the converstaion if you'll refrain from allowing it devolve into you calling everyone names.  Otherwise I'm done - that's way to immature for me.

I'm sure you haven't learned anything from me because you chose not to.  But then again, half my posts were just to explain that the burden of proof is on you if you believe your view on the way the world works is correct.  Not only have you not addressed this, I've been told that the burden of proof is on me to prove that the world works the way common sense and 100s of years of math and science have concluded.  Obviously the math and science are CLOSER to true, unless you can prove that your view is.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 10:17 am - IP Logged

Look here Ms. Bone lover can't leave the topic like you said you would,  your reading comprehension is  Pre K..  You have shown nothing new.  We have learned nothing from you..  Gladys went here first with the psychological insult crap.

Gladys and you should PM each other and shower each other with your vast and deep understanding of random crap.

"Look here Ms. Bone lover can't leave the topic like you said you would,  your reading comprehension is  Pre K.."

Maybe that's because you form sentences like a 4th grader.  If you want to call us stupid - I could start pointing out every huge grammatical mistake you've made which has made it nearly impossible to understand you, but it's just funnier that you told me that my reading comprehension is Pre-K right after a sentence that is grammatically incorrect.

Harbinger
D.C./MD.
United States
Member #44103
July 30, 2006
5583 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 10:29 am - IP Logged

OK,  I will,  you and Gladys are stupid.  Sorry you can't comprehend my 4th grade level writing,  that is why I am convinced you're Pre K.   Please,  spend your morning correcting my grammar.   I'll learn so much.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 4:42 pm - IP Logged

OK,  I will,  you and Gladys are stupid.  Sorry you can't comprehend my 4th grade level writing,  that is why I am convinced you're Pre K.   Please,  spend your morning correcting my grammar.   I'll learn so much.

LOL OK Buddy, I'm stupid for pointing out the mathemetics of the subject - and telling you that in order for your theory to be considered true - you must offer proof.  I guess I forgot that when Einstein came out with his theories, nobody asked for proof they just accepted it as fact.

The only reason I pointed out your grammar is because you called me Pre-K.

Whatever man I'm done with this, I'd wish you good luck if you weren't being such a d***, instead of having an adult debate.

United States
Member #75358
June 1, 2009
5345 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 5:16 pm - IP Logged

LOL OK Buddy, I'm stupid for pointing out the mathemetics of the subject - and telling you that in order for your theory to be considered true - you must offer proof.  I guess I forgot that when Einstein came out with his theories, nobody asked for proof they just accepted it as fact.

The only reason I pointed out your grammar is because you called me Pre-K.

Whatever man I'm done with this, I'd wish you good luck if you weren't being such a d***, instead of having an adult debate.

It's impossible to have a debate with a brick wall know-it-all...

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 24, 2011, 5:37 pm - IP Logged

It's impossible to have a debate with a brick wall know-it-all...

No see it's impossible to have a debate with someone who doesn't believe he has to back up what he says, and has no respect for anybody who questions his words.  You must think you're some kind of end all be all of everything knowledgable - because you think the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove you wrong.

It's impossible to debate with someone who has such a huge ego.  Grow up.  I don't know it all - in fact I have a very rudementary understanding of Statistics.  Having an opinion grounded in logic doesn't make me a know it all.

 Page 7 of 18