Welcome Guest
You last visited December 9, 2016, 4:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

 Page 18 of 353

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 22, 2012, 10:24 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie, odds and number count NEVER LIE, okay. You can sit down and go over all the data yourself regarding the 200 lines and find a reasonable resolve on your own. In the end, though, unless you're lucky it's just not going to pan out and be profitable. Listen, (200) lines will produce a "strategic" 3+0 win which you can pretty much depend on...that's only \$400 @ \$2 per line. Not a lot of numbers by any means at all for this game...a drop in the bucket unless you're lucky. I would definitely think long and hard about such an attempt. Not trying to be negative or anything, okay. Numbers just don't lie, Ronnie...and you've done the math on what it takes to win on (5) numbers.

L.L.

Your right LL. I don't think a 1 in 3445 chance is reasonable at all. Just think what they are saying..... for every \$648,000 they take in they are giving out 1 (ONE) \$10,000 "prize"

Then when someone wins a JP thy say "we will need to make payments on that"

I think the smartest thing to do is focus on 5 of 5 and forget about the bonus ball.

I mean, if it hits on accident, OK, I will take it but there is no way to play for it.

Ok, so no one is going to play 98,280 lines but at least on paper it gives me a 1 in 38 chance of hitting 5 of 5, and if I can "better" those odds I could hit 4 to 5 times a year. At that rate I will hit a JP in less time than the medicine man playing almost twice the lines.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 22, 2012, 10:47 pm - IP Logged

But for the sake of argument..... lets say that someone DID play \$100,000. per draw.

That would \$10 million a year and if it took 5 years to hit a JP... that's \$50 million.

So in the end, being "profitable" would in all realty depend on the size of the JP.

If a person hit a \$100 million JP in 3 years he would show a \$70 million profit.

But if it took 10 years to hit a \$30 million JP it would be a \$70 million loss.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19830 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 12:17 am - IP Logged

What can you really win though RJ with 200 lines? I would spend the \$200. per draw myself and split with you if I thought we had a reasonable chance. But the stated lottery odds of winning even \$10,000. playing 200 lines per draw are about 1 in 3445 draws.

Depends on which game you're playing but most likely it would be a lot less than spent playing that many lines.

My post was a response toLottoBoner and not a suggestion that anyone play 200 lines.  At the time I participated in a challenge to prove there was nothing unique about the Lotto Cheetah system. I would never play more than 25 lines but if you're ever interested in trying his system, he still has an active website, just google it.

You keep using the word "we" in response to my posts, let me be as clear as I possible can, there is no "we" when it comes to "me" playing the lottery, I only play alone.

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

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 12:34 am - IP Logged

Depends on which game you're playing but most likely it would be a lot less than spent playing that many lines.

My post was a response toLottoBoner and not a suggestion that anyone play 200 lines.  At the time I participated in a challenge to prove there was nothing unique about the Lotto Cheetah system. I would never play more than 25 lines but if you're ever interested in trying his system, he still has an active website, just google it.

You keep using the word "we" in response to my posts, let me be as clear as I possible can, there is no "we" when it comes to "me" playing the lottery, I only play alone.

The "we" comments were purely hypothetical, rest assured.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 1:15 am - IP Logged

topnail and RJOh both had 3+0 Ronnie had 1+0

10 - 16 - 24 - 29 - 53 ** 8
10 - 16 - 24 - 31 - 34 ** 8
10 - 16 - 24 - 31 - 36 ** 8
10 - 16 - 24 - 31 - 38 ** 8
10 - 16 - 24 - 31 - 43 ** 8

16 - 23 - 24 - 31 - 53 ** 36
16 - 23 - 24 - 32 - 33 ** 36
16 - 23 - 24 - 32 - 34 ** 36
16 - 23 - 24 - 32 - 35 ** 36
16 - 23 - 24 - 32 - 36 ** 36

United States
Member #6363
August 20, 2004
4063 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 12:17 pm - IP Logged

2-3-4-8-9-10-11-15-16-17-20-21-23-24-27-28-30-32-33-34-36-38-42-46-48-53-54-55

using 11 for the mm

Let's me know if I didn't follow the directions correctly.

Don't Chase... Compare and Narrow

The Cheaper the Cost the Higher the Profit

Many Winners to You.

D_A

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 1:03 pm - IP Logged

2-3-4-8-9-10-11-15-16-17-20-21-23-24-27-28-30-32-33-34-36-38-42-46-48-53-54-55

using 11 for the mm

Let's me know if I didn't follow the directions correctly.

Perfect Aim, the object is to hit 5 of 5 in less than 38 draws proving that intuition gives

some number combinations better odds

Here is a small sample of your 98,280 lines. I usually post results the day after each MM draw.

8 - 10 - 34 - 48 - 54 ** 11
8 - 10 - 34 - 48 - 55 ** 11
8 - 10 - 34 - 53 - 54 ** 11
8 - 10 - 34 - 53 - 55 ** 11
8 - 10 - 34 - 54 - 55 ** 11
8 - 10 - 36 - 38 - 42 ** 11
8 - 10 - 36 - 38 - 46 ** 11
8 - 10 - 36 - 38 - 48 ** 11
8 - 10 - 36 - 38 - 53 ** 11
8 - 10 - 36 - 38 - 54 ** 11
8 - 10 - 36 - 38 - 55 ** 11

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7318 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 5:58 pm - IP Logged

2-3-4-8-9-10-11-15-16-17-20-21-23-24-27-28-30-32-33-34-36-38-42-46-48-53-54-55

using 11 for the mm

Let's me know if I didn't follow the directions correctly.

If anyone has a method for creating a group of 28 numbers that consistently matches all 5 numbers, they are basically reducing the odds from 4 million to 1 to 98,280 to 1. Playing the full wheel is probably out of the question even for the above average player, but abbreviated wheels are something to consider. A 3if4 has about 230 combos, a 4if5 has less than 2200 combos, and a 4if4 has under 4800.

Just by applying standard filters to your 28 numbers, I reduced it to 6750 combos. Probably not for the average player, but something to think about.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19830 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 6:25 pm - IP Logged

If anyone has a method for creating a group of 28 numbers that consistently matches all 5 numbers, they are basically reducing the odds from 4 million to 1 to 98,280 to 1. Playing the full wheel is probably out of the question even for the above average player, but abbreviated wheels are something to consider. A 3if4 has about 230 combos, a 4if5 has less than 2200 combos, and a 4if4 has under 4800.

Just by applying standard filters to your 28 numbers, I reduced it to 6750 combos. Probably not for the average player, but something to think about.

So far in the last 730 drawings since the last MM matrix change, 1533 of the possible 1540 combinations of twos have hit and I've picked the 28 most productive numbers from that list and can't find any group of 28 that matched all five winning numbers in more than a third of the drawings so no such group exists.

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

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 7:04 pm - IP Logged

If anyone has a method for creating a group of 28 numbers that consistently matches all 5 numbers, they are basically reducing the odds from 4 million to 1 to 98,280 to 1. Playing the full wheel is probably out of the question even for the above average player, but abbreviated wheels are something to consider. A 3if4 has about 230 combos, a 4if5 has less than 2200 combos, and a 4if4 has under 4800.

Just by applying standard filters to your 28 numbers, I reduced it to 6750 combos. Probably not for the average player, but something to think about.

You have my attention Stack, bring on the group and it will be put to the test. I have another person who is compiling a 10,000 combo group as we speak, so it sounds like you are on the right track.

The only reason I'm using a full 28 wheel is because statistically it has a 1 in 38 chance of hitting 5 of 5 and its easy to measure results. Any smaller group that gets the same results or better is more than welcome.

We can post the list in a blog if it wont fit here.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 23, 2012, 11:24 pm - IP Logged

If anyone has a method for creating a group of 28 numbers that consistently matches all 5 numbers, they are basically reducing the odds from 4 million to 1 to 98,280 to 1. Playing the full wheel is probably out of the question even for the above average player, but abbreviated wheels are something to consider. A 3if4 has about 230 combos, a 4if5 has less than 2200 combos, and a 4if4 has under 4800.

Just by applying standard filters to your 28 numbers, I reduced it to 6750 combos. Probably not for the average player, but something to think about.

Just so you know Stack, no one here is talking about "creating a group of 28 numbers that consistently matches all 5 numbers"...........

The object is to choose combinations that will give you "BETTER ODDS" because of the intuitive and predictive ability of the person choosing the combinations.

Pick the numbers you think will give you the quickest win.

Its kind of like playing "beat the clock"...... only you are playing "beat the odds"

The odds for any "random" group of 98,280 lines hitting 5 of5 are 1 in 38 draws.

You can use 10,000 lines but that will change your odds of hitting 5 of 5 to 380 draws.

But who wants to wait around almost 4 years to see if their numbers "beat the odds"?

Now if you can start hitting 5 of 5 with 10k lines in less than 38 draws you'll be crowned as the owner of the Holy Grail and kings of the earth will seek your wisdom.

I did it in 2 draws using 98,280 lines, but doing it ONCE means NOTHING as it was instantly labeled "a fluke" and "wasting my time" and "you are confused"

So bring your numbers and lets see if some number combinations have better odds

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7318 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 24, 2012, 12:07 am - IP Logged

So far in the last 730 drawings since the last MM matrix change, 1533 of the possible 1540 combinations of twos have hit and I've picked the 28 most productive numbers from that list and can't find any group of 28 that matched all five winning numbers in more than a third of the drawings so no such group exists.

I was thinking in terms matching 15% to 20% of the drawings tops, but one out of three drawings means it could be played at a small profit without hitting the jackpot. Playing the full wheel is hypothetical but playing some of the pairs is an possible option.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19830 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 24, 2012, 2:23 am - IP Logged

I was thinking in terms matching 15% to 20% of the drawings tops, but one out of three drawings means it could be played at a small profit without hitting the jackpot. Playing the full wheel is hypothetical but playing some of the pairs is an possible option.

A full wheel of 28 numbers has 98280 lines so every three games you need to win \$294,840 just to break even money wise not to mention the time spent filling out play slips and standing in lines to play them.

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

United States
Member #111442
May 25, 2011
6323 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 24, 2012, 7:46 am - IP Logged

A full wheel of 28 numbers has 98280 lines so every three games you need to win \$294,840 just to break even money wise not to mention the time spent filling out play slips and standing in lines to play them.

If you allotted just 10 seconds, for each of the 98,280 played numbers to be filled out, this would consume 273 hours of your time.

That would be the equivalent of working at a job eight hours a day, Monday through Friday, for nearly seven weeks.

Playing the same numbers would not be quite as time consuming, allowing 15 seconds for each of the five paneled slips, would translate

to 82 man hours, or about two weeks of continuous work.

Total time invested 355 man hours. If you paid someone \$10/hour to perform this tedious task: \$3,550

This would not be a bad investment, so long as your tickets are consistently winning.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19830 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 24, 2012, 9:50 am - IP Logged

If you allotted just 10 seconds, for each of the 98,280 played numbers to be filled out, this would consume 273 hours of your time.

That would be the equivalent of working at a job eight hours a day, Monday through Friday, for nearly seven weeks.

Playing the same numbers would not be quite as time consuming, allowing 15 seconds for each of the five paneled slips, would translate

to 82 man hours, or about two weeks of continuous work.

Total time invested 355 man hours. If you paid someone \$10/hour to perform this tedious task: \$3,550

This would not be a bad investment, so long as your tickets are consistently winning.

Sounds like a plan if only someone could come up a list that works.

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

 Page 18 of 353