Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 11:30 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 8 of 18
52
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #75358
June 1, 2009
5345 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 24, 2011, 6:25 pm - IP Logged

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.

So I come here with a wagering method that you've never heard before, but you shoot it down becuase your favorite math gurus  from history said they've tried everything in the world, so this must be another BS method. But you want me to prove it to you, even when I told you a hundred times that I don't fully understand the inner workings, however, I do understand the basic concepts. That's not good enough for you. Your ego won't allow room for improvement unless it's proven right here and now.

Why can't you just say that it's possible that it may work instead of coming outright and making bold statements which sound like you've already made up your mind without even knowing what the method entails? You're a big headed, over-enthusiastic math junkie who has no dimensions, and your approach is horrid.

Leaving no room for a possibility of it working shows me your arrogance. Nothing's written in stone. So get off your high chair and put down your bullhorn cause I'm not going to throw in the towel just because Boney said so.

I can't wait for the day when I finally test it and it works, and see the look on your face. Your math goons will either schmidt in their pants, or their egos won't allow them to admit they were wrong. I'm willing to bet the latter, because I've already witnessed the latter by you and Jimmy earlier when I mentioned my friend's ability to beat the MATH GIANT"S odds with another method, and all you both had to say was....HE WAS LUCKY......What a joke !........You don't even have the balls to admit you don't understand how he does this and humble yourselfs to admit the unknown. Instead, you look for the least amount to concede without making yourselves feel bad by saying it was luck, when deep down you both know how rediculous that is. Maybe if you took the time to learn something before criticizing it, I'd have more respect for your worthless and uneducated opinions.

 

 BOB: "Hey Joey, how was that new movie that came out last week in the theaters?"...........

Joey: I didn't watch it but it looks like it stinks.......

 BOB: But wait, how would you know it stinks If you haven't seen it?.....

JOEY: Well, I've watched movies since I was 12 years old, and now I'm 63, so I think I can make a wise judgement by the trailer.....

 BOB:.Oh, ok Joey, you're so freaking smart dude...That's an incredible talent you have Joey........

Joey: AWWWW, gee wiz thanks ...Bob...Crazy

 

LOONEY TUNES FOLKS ......LOONEY TUNES....

    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
    New Jersey
    United States
    Member #99032
    October 18, 2010
    1439 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: August 24, 2011, 6:41 pm - IP Logged

    So I come here with a wagering method that you've never heard before, but you shoot it down becuase your favorite math gurus  from history said they've tried everything in the world, so this must be another BS method. But you want me to prove it to you, even when I told you a hundred times that I don't fully understand the inner workings, however, I do understand the basic concepts. That's not good enough for you. Your ego won't allow room for improvement unless it's proven right here and now.

    Why can't you just say that it's possible that it may work instead of coming outright and making bold statements which sound like you've already made up your mind without even knowing what the method entails? You're a big headed, over-enthusiastic math junkie who has no dimensions, and your approach is horrid.

    Leaving no room for a possibility of it working shows me your arrogance. Nothing's written in stone. So get off your high chair and put down your bullhorn cause I'm not going to throw in the towel just because Boney said so.

    I can't wait for the day when I finally test it and it works, and see the look on your face. Your math goons will either schmidt in their pants, or their egos won't allow them to admit they were wrong. I'm willing to bet the latter, because I've already witnessed the latter by you and Jimmy earlier when I mentioned my friend's ability to beat the MATH GIANT"S odds with another method, and all you both had to say was....HE WAS LUCKY......What a joke !........You don't even have the balls to admit you don't understand how he does this and humble yourselfs to admit the unknown. Instead, you look for the least amount to concede without making yourselves feel bad by saying it was luck, when deep down you both know how rediculous that is. Maybe if you took the time to learn something before criticizing it, I'd have more respect for your worthless and uneducated opinions.

     

     BOB: "Hey Joey, how was that new movie that came out last week in the theaters?"...........

    Joey: I didn't watch it but it looks like it stinks.......

     BOB: But wait, how would you know it stinks If you haven't seen it?.....

    JOEY: Well, I've watched movies since I was 12 years old, and now I'm 63, so I think I can make a wise judgement by the trailer.....

     BOB:.Oh, ok Joey, you're so freaking smart dude...That's an incredible talent you have Joey........

    Joey: AWWWW, gee wiz thanks ...Bob...Crazy

     

    LOONEY TUNES FOLKS ......LOONEY TUNES....

    Ok.  Hang on.  You're completely misrepresenting what I said.  I even DID say that it IS POSSIBLE - but that in my opinion it isn't true.  I've said multiple times that every system I've seen tested has turned out to be false - and so I don't BELIEVE it's true.  I've said that there is some small chance that we are wrong, Statistics and Probability as we know it today are wrong, but that the burden of proof is on YOU and other like minded people to prove it, because the laws of probability that people like me believe in is accepted science.  If you, or someone else, can eventually prove that it is correct, then, yes, we will have a lot of thinking to do - and a lot will change.

     

    And if you gave me the exact method that your friend uses, like down to a T, I could calculate his odds of winning that much over 10 months - I gave you an estimate in another post.  I believe he'd be in the top couple percent, proably actually top percent, as in, exetremely low odds of the event you described, but even then it's subjective, as in - it's not really proof for 2 reasons.  1) You could be making this up - but assuming you are not, then 2) He actually could get that lucky, because some amount of people do occupy the top percent and just get lucky.  If you don't think that's POSSIBLE then I don't know what to say.  You don't have to believe it's true, but are you saying that there's no chance, that it's completely impossible, that he's just gotten lucky?


      United States
      Member #75358
      June 1, 2009
      5345 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: August 24, 2011, 7:16 pm - IP Logged

      Ok.  Hang on.  You're completely misrepresenting what I said.  I even DID say that it IS POSSIBLE - but that in my opinion it isn't true.  I've said multiple times that every system I've seen tested has turned out to be false - and so I don't BELIEVE it's true.  I've said that there is some small chance that we are wrong, Statistics and Probability as we know it today are wrong, but that the burden of proof is on YOU and other like minded people to prove it, because the laws of probability that people like me believe in is accepted science.  If you, or someone else, can eventually prove that it is correct, then, yes, we will have a lot of thinking to do - and a lot will change.

       

      And if you gave me the exact method that your friend uses, like down to a T, I could calculate his odds of winning that much over 10 months - I gave you an estimate in another post.  I believe he'd be in the top couple percent, proably actually top percent, as in, exetremely low odds of the event you described, but even then it's subjective, as in - it's not really proof for 2 reasons.  1) You could be making this up - but assuming you are not, then 2) He actually could get that lucky, because some amount of people do occupy the top percent and just get lucky.  If you don't think that's POSSIBLE then I don't know what to say.  You don't have to believe it's true, but are you saying that there's no chance, that it's completely impossible, that he's just gotten lucky?

      I see, when all else fails, just call me a liar. I see how you work now....whatever...yeah, I'm lying because I have nothing better to do than sit here and win an argument with you.

      No, I don't believe someone can have that much luck. Once or twice, maybe 3 or 4 times in a row, but not continually for 10 months. That's just denial on your part.

      I already told you how he does it. He plays the remaining p-4 numbers in one state which I won't mention because I respect his privacy. In that state, there's about 6,500 combos that haven't shown in straight form since the inception of the game. He plays them at 25 cents a combo. Then he has smaller pools of numbers. It can range between 3 to 4 pools depending on what the programs tell him to generate those combos, and other factors. Each of the smaller pools can vary, about a couple to a few hundred. When he does win, he wins multiple times because most of the time, the winning straight combo is in the main pool of 6,500 and in some or all of the smaller pools. In one instance, and I'm sure it happened on other instances, he won in the main pool, and all of the remaining smaller pools. At 25 cents online it pays $2,250 for a straight p-4 hit. So that's $2,250 X 5 = $11 250.00 minus the expense which usually runs around $3,000, so a net of about $8,000......WHY X 5?....he won in the main pool, that's 2250, and the remaining 4 pools, that's another 2250 for each pool equals 5 pools altogether. Of course that doesn't happen everytime, but most of the time it's atleast the main pool (6,500) and 2 of the smaller pools.... more often 3. 

      And like I said earlier, on very extreme rare occasions he loses hard, like when I said one time he emailed me and said he lost $20,000 in about a week's time. That was just bad luck, But that's rare. Most of the time it's $3,000 or so when he loses.

      Look, I have no reason to lie. He hasn't asked me for one dime, so it's not like he's running a scam. Why would someone contact me out of the blue and tell me these things, not just with emails, but talking on the phone intermitently for weeks on end? Even willing to give the same numbers for the asking, FREE!! (Even though I told him that When and If I ever opened and online account after saving 10 grand or more, I'd give him royalties based on whatever commission he thought was fair. I'm not a mooch, and don't mind paying for the numbers. Afterall, he's doing all the work). He liked reading my systems in the backround as a lurker, and thought I'd be interested in this. In fact he used a couple of mys systems to make money, so he PMed me. he then gave me the numbers for the state he was playing in, for every draw he was going to play, for about 2 weeks just to prove it works. And it did. Of course it didn't hit everytime, no system will, but it hit enough to make very nice profits.

      I just hope he doesn't get mad at me for reavealing what I've written so far. I doubt it since I've kept his identity and any clues that could lead to him. But no worry because this person hasn't even made one post on the LP...Not one! 

      You believe what you want, I really don't care. I'm not playing King of the ego at LP, just letting you know that there are things out there which work, and just because you or anyone else aren't aware of them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

      I've had ESP happen so many times in my life, I can't even keep track, but i can't prove it to you, I just know that it was way too coincidental to be lucky. I know that ability exists If you're in the right frequency. But If it happens to be the case that you don't believe in ESP, because you've never seen proof, does that mean it doesn't exist?

        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
        New Jersey
        United States
        Member #99032
        October 18, 2010
        1439 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: August 24, 2011, 8:14 pm - IP Logged

        I'm just gonna quote the times I said that I said it's possible, but the burden of proof is on you, just to show that I clearly didn't say it was impossible.

         

        1) 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.

         

        2)I guess once you realized I was being sarcastic you realized that you sound nuts, saying that the burden of proof is on me to PROVE some unproven betting system wrong - and that if I don't have the ability to prove a system I know nothing about wrong - then I must be just as wrong as you.

         

        3)It's definetely possible to make money on the Pick 4 online, it's just that it's more possible to lose.

         

        If you want to believe there are other ways to beat the randomness of Pick 3/4 or anything else there's not much I can do about it.  The only reason I'm trying to explain my view to you is so that hopefully see that such systems lead to a higher expected loss.  If you don't agree - then there's not much I can do about it.

         

        4)I never said never, I said that there's no tangible proof, and without that - you must assume everything that has tangible proof is far "more true"

         

        Can be made obsolete....  Good luck proving that statistics is wrong, but I think you will have a very hard time.  These mathemetics weren't developed in the last 20 years, they've been in the works for thousands of years.

         

        5)OK I'm sorry I believe things have to be proven to be considered true.  That's how science works.  You point to wagering systems as a science - but if asked to show proof you just say I'm clueless.

         

        Now that's a convincing arguement What?

         

        6)Einstein had an inspirational vision.

         

        The "abstract thinking" you had mentioned.  He then went on to seek proof of what he thought was true.  Which lead to our understanding of the universe.

         

        See the key difference - he seeked proof and discovered it.

         

        7)I didn't say there was no alternative.

         

        I said there had to be proof for it to be credible, and I that I have serious doubts as to whether their is a reasonable alternative to the laws of statistics dictating random events.

         

        In fact, I quite literally said that as far as somebody consistently beating the lottery in the long term, over thousands of draws that AS FAR AS I KNOW it's never happened.

         

        8)My main point is anybody can make a claim like your, without proof, and stick by their guns.

         

        Just don't expect anybody to believe it because there is no proof.  If Einstein never put out his theory - if nobody tested it by viewing the stars that the sun passed by during an eclipse - we wouldn't believe in half the stuff we do now.

         

        If you honestly believe these things, which I - and the vast majority of people - don't, you must at least offer proof, instead of just calling me clueless, arrogant, or what have you for pointing towards proven mathemtical models.

         

        So I said that 8 times.  8 TIMES.

          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #99032
          October 18, 2010
          1439 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 24, 2011, 8:18 pm - IP Logged

          As for that method - The math to work out the exact odds would be very complicated - If you are interested I can work out a rough estimate, but the math is actually impossible to do accurately since the method is based on variables I don't know, and I'm assuming you don't know.

           

          I could do the math with just the pool of 6500 fairly easily - but it seems to me that your friend made most of his money on the smaller pools, if I had that data - then I could calculate the odds of winning at least 900000 over 600 draws, or 8/10*600 draws, whichever you would say he did. (which is about how many will happen in 10 months)

           

          I'm only going to if you actually want me to, but the odds would be fairly low.  Low enough that you'll probably use it as confirmation that his method will work long term, which I'm sure it wouldn't.  If he keeps it up forever, my prediction is that sooner or later (probably later if he made that much already) he will end up losing it all unless he stops.  Not that you'll believe it.


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 24, 2011, 10:56 pm - IP Logged

            As for that method - The math to work out the exact odds would be very complicated - If you are interested I can work out a rough estimate, but the math is actually impossible to do accurately since the method is based on variables I don't know, and I'm assuming you don't know.

             

            I could do the math with just the pool of 6500 fairly easily - but it seems to me that your friend made most of his money on the smaller pools, if I had that data - then I could calculate the odds of winning at least 900000 over 600 draws, or 8/10*600 draws, whichever you would say he did. (which is about how many will happen in 10 months)

             

            I'm only going to if you actually want me to, but the odds would be fairly low.  Low enough that you'll probably use it as confirmation that his method will work long term, which I'm sure it wouldn't.  If he keeps it up forever, my prediction is that sooner or later (probably later if he made that much already) he will end up losing it all unless he stops.  Not that you'll believe it.

            You're doing a better job than me shedding light on the underlying problem here.  I believe that the reason people have such a hard time accepting that their systems don't work is because they have trouble grasping the fact that the randomness of the games has the ability to produce those lucky few who win big, the other unlucky few who lose it all, and the vast majority who, over time, lose the house edge, whatever it is.  It's even harder trying to get this point across when dealing with people who play online where the house only has a 10% edge because they observe so many more short term winners!  Check out my little simulation that relates to this using the recent interest in the scarcity of the RB28.

            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229998/2182697

              CARBOB's avatar - FL LOTTERY_LOGO.png
              ORLANDO, FLORIDA
              United States
              Member #4924
              June 3, 2004
              5894 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 25, 2011, 6:23 am - IP Logged

              As for that method - The math to work out the exact odds would be very complicated - If you are interested I can work out a rough estimate, but the math is actually impossible to do accurately since the method is based on variables I don't know, and I'm assuming you don't know.

               

              I could do the math with just the pool of 6500 fairly easily - but it seems to me that your friend made most of his money on the smaller pools, if I had that data - then I could calculate the odds of winning at least 900000 over 600 draws, or 8/10*600 draws, whichever you would say he did. (which is about how many will happen in 10 months)

               

              I'm only going to if you actually want me to, but the odds would be fairly low.  Low enough that you'll probably use it as confirmation that his method will work long term, which I'm sure it wouldn't.  If he keeps it up forever, my prediction is that sooner or later (probably later if he made that much already) he will end up losing it all unless he stops.  Not that you'll believe it.

              What would happen if he did post the complete system and you find, it does work as he stated? Then you are anyone else could jump on the bandwagon and reap the rewards. He doesn't have to post it for me to accept it, just as lotterybraker doesn't have to post his system, for me to accept his work. I have seen some of his work and what he has shown, his method works. I've seen some of RL-Randomlogic's work and results (tickets), his methods will produce a 5/5.

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #99032
                October 18, 2010
                1439 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 25, 2011, 8:54 am - IP Logged

                What would happen if he did post the complete system and you find, it does work as he stated? Then you are anyone else could jump on the bandwagon and reap the rewards. He doesn't have to post it for me to accept it, just as lotterybraker doesn't have to post his system, for me to accept his work. I have seen some of his work and what he has shown, his method works. I've seen some of RL-Randomlogic's work and results (tickets), his methods will produce a 5/5.

                I was just going to find the odds of his friend winning that much.

                 

                I can't prove that his system doesn't work because he believes so dearly that it does.  I can show the odds of it working for somebody, and they'll be very low, and any short term test is not proof.

                 

                He's already posted the basics of the system - one based in Gambler Fallacy - but I can't test the real odds without knowing more specifics, like on average how big the secondary pools of numbers are and how much he wagers on them.  But either way - I can realize the odds are pretty low of anybody winning that much, unless his bets were really big and even then they'd be relatively low odds.

                 

                But a 5 dollar bet on a number straight wins 45000 dollars on line, so placeing a few winning bets like that, it's certainly possible to win a huge amount.

                  Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                  New Jersey
                  United States
                  Member #99032
                  October 18, 2010
                  1439 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 25, 2011, 8:55 am - IP Logged

                  You're doing a better job than me shedding light on the underlying problem here.  I believe that the reason people have such a hard time accepting that their systems don't work is because they have trouble grasping the fact that the randomness of the games has the ability to produce those lucky few who win big, the other unlucky few who lose it all, and the vast majority who, over time, lose the house edge, whatever it is.  It's even harder trying to get this point across when dealing with people who play online where the house only has a 10% edge because they observe so many more short term winners!  Check out my little simulation that relates to this using the recent interest in the scarcity of the RB28.

                  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229998/2182697

                  I agree.  It's hard to explain that unlikely things happen to people who believe that when an unlikely thing happens there must be something else at work.

                    Avatar
                    New Member
                    New Jersey
                    United States
                    Member #78919
                    August 24, 2009
                    46 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 25, 2011, 9:46 am - IP Logged

                    I've read a good deal of this thread, and I'm going to go ahead and state that I abhor QPs. I accept that a QP is just as a good as a ticket that was SPed, but I prefer to try to make educated guesses and figure out what might hit. When I've done that, (and mind you this is all anecdotal, and hence based on MY opinion) I have gotten more hits than when I let the machine pick it for me.

                     

                    There has to be thousands upon thousands of machines throughout my state of NJ. NJ isn't exactly a tiny state, though certainly not as large as others. There is just too many variables that effects when a QP wins. Also too, there are some areas that have NEVER gotten a hit with a QP. Now true, maybe one day it will be due....but then 1-2-3-4-5-6 may also be due to hit too.....or any other 6 number consecutive set (which, to date has NEVER happened in any 6/XX lottery game, to my knowledge).

                     

                    Now keep in mind, I'm not a statistician, or mathematician. I just know that buying $30 worth of QPs has never garnered so much as $3 returned to me. SPs has at least gotten me a $12 profit (so far....) Take what I said FWIW.

                      Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                      New Jersey
                      United States
                      Member #99032
                      October 18, 2010
                      1439 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 25, 2011, 4:43 pm - IP Logged

                      I've read a good deal of this thread, and I'm going to go ahead and state that I abhor QPs. I accept that a QP is just as a good as a ticket that was SPed, but I prefer to try to make educated guesses and figure out what might hit. When I've done that, (and mind you this is all anecdotal, and hence based on MY opinion) I have gotten more hits than when I let the machine pick it for me.

                       

                      There has to be thousands upon thousands of machines throughout my state of NJ. NJ isn't exactly a tiny state, though certainly not as large as others. There is just too many variables that effects when a QP wins. Also too, there are some areas that have NEVER gotten a hit with a QP. Now true, maybe one day it will be due....but then 1-2-3-4-5-6 may also be due to hit too.....or any other 6 number consecutive set (which, to date has NEVER happened in any 6/XX lottery game, to my knowledge).

                       

                      Now keep in mind, I'm not a statistician, or mathematician. I just know that buying $30 worth of QPs has never garnered so much as $3 returned to me. SPs has at least gotten me a $12 profit (so far....) Take what I said FWIW.

                      What you've experienced is likely due to chance.

                       

                      Although I usually do SPs myself, but that's a different story, I just prefer to pick my own numbers - and mix in a QP or 2. 

                       

                      But that also has a lot do with the fact that I usually play with a couple of key numbers, if we could do partial QPs in Jersey I'd probably do those far more often.

                        rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                        Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                        United States
                        Member #73904
                        April 28, 2009
                        14903 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 25, 2011, 4:59 pm - IP Logged

                        What you've experienced is likely due to chance.

                         

                        Although I usually do SPs myself, but that's a different story, I just prefer to pick my own numbers - and mix in a QP or 2. 

                         

                        But that also has a lot do with the fact that I usually play with a couple of key numbers, if we could do partial QPs in Jersey I'd probably do those far more often.

                        We can do partial QP's in TN but I don't want to appear to like it.

                        If the Dragon Lady thinks that the players here like something, she'll cancel it immediately.

                        And start the floggings again.


                                                                     
                                             
                                                                 

                         

                         

                         

                         

                                                                                                                           

                        "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                    --Edmund Burke

                         

                         

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7302 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: August 25, 2011, 5:20 pm - IP Logged

                          So I come here with a wagering method that you've never heard before, but you shoot it down becuase your favorite math gurus  from history said they've tried everything in the world, so this must be another BS method. But you want me to prove it to you, even when I told you a hundred times that I don't fully understand the inner workings, however, I do understand the basic concepts. That's not good enough for you. Your ego won't allow room for improvement unless it's proven right here and now.

                          Why can't you just say that it's possible that it may work instead of coming outright and making bold statements which sound like you've already made up your mind without even knowing what the method entails? You're a big headed, over-enthusiastic math junkie who has no dimensions, and your approach is horrid.

                          Leaving no room for a possibility of it working shows me your arrogance. Nothing's written in stone. So get off your high chair and put down your bullhorn cause I'm not going to throw in the towel just because Boney said so.

                          I can't wait for the day when I finally test it and it works, and see the look on your face. Your math goons will either schmidt in their pants, or their egos won't allow them to admit they were wrong. I'm willing to bet the latter, because I've already witnessed the latter by you and Jimmy earlier when I mentioned my friend's ability to beat the MATH GIANT"S odds with another method, and all you both had to say was....HE WAS LUCKY......What a joke !........You don't even have the balls to admit you don't understand how he does this and humble yourselfs to admit the unknown. Instead, you look for the least amount to concede without making yourselves feel bad by saying it was luck, when deep down you both know how rediculous that is. Maybe if you took the time to learn something before criticizing it, I'd have more respect for your worthless and uneducated opinions.

                           

                           BOB: "Hey Joey, how was that new movie that came out last week in the theaters?"...........

                          Joey: I didn't watch it but it looks like it stinks.......

                           BOB: But wait, how would you know it stinks If you haven't seen it?.....

                          JOEY: Well, I've watched movies since I was 12 years old, and now I'm 63, so I think I can make a wise judgement by the trailer.....

                           BOB:.Oh, ok Joey, you're so freaking smart dude...That's an incredible talent you have Joey........

                          Joey: AWWWW, gee wiz thanks ...Bob...Crazy

                           

                          LOONEY TUNES FOLKS ......LOONEY TUNES....

                          "So I come here with a wagering method that you've never heard before, but you shoot it down because your favorite math gurus  from history said they've tried everything in the world, so this must be another BS method."

                          It looks pretty simple to me because he is playing 65% of the numbers and since he is playing some numbers multiple times, it's easy to see the potential to maintain a 185% profit. The math "gurus" you're debating with will tell you what he can't do based on their 5000 year QP simulation ignoring the fact the average human life span is less than 80 years. One did finally acknowledge the fact he is getting a 9000 to 1 return on each wager.

                          Don't let the fact these "gurus" don't know which numbers or why they are played multiple times get in the way of their multi centuries QP simulations because their "it can't be done" agenda prevents them. We really can't knock the "math gurus" being quoted because their articles weren't meant to debunk any gaming systems ever conceived. If these math wizards are gaming consultants, their role would be the overall effect of short term system play and probably why they offer gaming tips and strategies in their articles.

                          It looks like your friend did his math homework and found a sweet spot in a lottery game by taking an advantage of the much larger online payoffs. If or when his advantage become less profitable, he will probably adjust his playing strategy or take his money and quit.

                          "and Jimmy earlier when I mentioned my friend's ability to beat the MATH GIANT"S odds with another method, and all you both had to say was....HE WAS LUCKY...... "

                          Are you talking about the same Jimmy that said "if 70% ticket purchases are QPs than 70% of the winners are QPs"?

                          Your friend has a 13 to 7 edge that is pretty close to the 14 to 6 QP edge so it appears Jimmy believes all QP players combined are extremely lucky too.

                            Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                            New Jersey
                            United States
                            Member #99032
                            October 18, 2010
                            1439 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: August 25, 2011, 6:36 pm - IP Logged

                            AYAYAYAYAY ( Lol I have no idea how to spell that)

                             

                            I'll try again.  I've never said it can't be done, in fact I said that it IS possible to win in the short term, especially in a game as Volitile as Pick 4.  However, you are MORE LIKELY to lose, because playing that many numbers will result in the house edge slowly wearing down your bankroll over time.  The average human timespan is long enough to witness thousands of draws, and if over 600 draws his friend experienced enough luck to win that much MY ADVICE WAS TO STOP WHILE AHEAD.

                             

                            "One did finally acknowledge the fact he is getting a 9000 to 1 return on each wager."

                             

                            - More appropriately each wager won.  And since he's playing 65 percent of the numbers, the return is less, unless he hits on one of the wagers he's played multiple times.  I'd think your friend would be better off not playing the 6500 and just playing the smaller pools, since that would result in a lower overall wager with a higher volitality, meaning it is MORE likely that he is going to win a large amount, but more likely that he will lose a smaller amount.

                             

                            But whatever - I should stop trying to explain myself because every time I do, I get completely misquoted.

                             

                            I LITERALLY NEVER SAID IT CANT BE DONE, I ACTUALLY SAID IT CAN.  I JUST SAID THAT ITS MORE LIKELY THAT IT WONT HAPPEN - THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

                             

                            You can have whatever opinion you want, a statiscal analysis would show that he has an equal chance of beating the odds or losing according to the odds - and the edge is applied because the payout 90 percent of odds, which is why you are more likely to lose than win, because you have to beat the odds by a few percent to be in the profitable margin.


                              United States
                              Member #75358
                              June 1, 2009
                              5345 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: August 25, 2011, 8:00 pm - IP Logged

                              "So I come here with a wagering method that you've never heard before, but you shoot it down because your favorite math gurus  from history said they've tried everything in the world, so this must be another BS method."

                              It looks pretty simple to me because he is playing 65% of the numbers and since he is playing some numbers multiple times, it's easy to see the potential to maintain a 185% profit. The math "gurus" you're debating with will tell you what he can't do based on their 5000 year QP simulation ignoring the fact the average human life span is less than 80 years. One did finally acknowledge the fact he is getting a 9000 to 1 return on each wager.

                              Don't let the fact these "gurus" don't know which numbers or why they are played multiple times get in the way of their multi centuries QP simulations because their "it can't be done" agenda prevents them. We really can't knock the "math gurus" being quoted because their articles weren't meant to debunk any gaming systems ever conceived. If these math wizards are gaming consultants, their role would be the overall effect of short term system play and probably why they offer gaming tips and strategies in their articles.

                              It looks like your friend did his math homework and found a sweet spot in a lottery game by taking an advantage of the much larger online payoffs. If or when his advantage become less profitable, he will probably adjust his playing strategy or take his money and quit.

                              "and Jimmy earlier when I mentioned my friend's ability to beat the MATH GIANT"S odds with another method, and all you both had to say was....HE WAS LUCKY...... "

                              Are you talking about the same Jimmy that said "if 70% ticket purchases are QPs than 70% of the winners are QPs"?

                              Your friend has a 13 to 7 edge that is pretty close to the 14 to 6 QP edge so it appears Jimmy believes all QP players combined are extremely lucky too.

                              Right on the money. Also, what my friend does cannot be done with the P-3, only P-4. The reason being, the p-3 has turned over so many times now, that there are no remaining p-3 numbers that haven't shown up yet...straight, but the p-4 still has about 6,500 combos that haven't shown. It could've been done with the p-3 had he used his methods when the game first started 14 or so years ago, or whenever it was...You need to have more than 50% of the numbers not shown yet, preferrably 60% or more....

                              The math gurus may be correct with your everyday system on the market which runs dry and then starts up again, but loses in the long run. But my friend's concept is not only a unique one, but an ingenious one to boot. It doesn't fall under the same kind of "Dime a dozen" systems you find on the net. Also, the gurus would have to know exactly how many combos in the smaller pools are being played, and also factor in the quality of numbers generated by the programs used by my friend. Those combos are generated by a known system seller on the net. I can't mention his name because Todd knows this person and they're not exactly buddies.

                              But I believe the name of the specific program my friend uses is the "Slasher". I have the free trial for up to opening it up 3 times before you need a code. But I can't make heads or tails of it.....lol, at nay rate, my friend obviously knows how to use it and even told me a little about the basic workings when he uses it to reduce the pools down with the slasher.

                                 
                                Page 8 of 18