Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7295 Posts Offline

Posted: December 30, 2012, 9:18 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on December 30, 2012

Stack47,

Disheartened? LOL! What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient. Some might find this amusing. I find it pathetic.

If you don't know the methodology used to write a simulation as I described it, I suggest reading my earlier thread on Monte Carlo Methods. You might also check out the BASIC code I published of a roulette simulation. Your memory seems to be slipping.

You'll have to refresh MY memory of the 50,000 "mythical" players you refer to. That sounds more like what Ronnie requested earlier in this thread.

--Jimmy4164

"What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient."

Whatever knowledge of math and scientific mythology you claim to have was useless in this discussion. But then again you never understood common sense in the past so I doubt you'll understand it now.

From the beginning we discussed the possibility of specific groups of 28 numbers having better chances of having a five number and specifically in the MM game. After about 3000 posts, you decided to "help lift the fog that seems to have settled on this thread" by running a Monte Carlo simulation on a pick-3 game. The results you showed proved what we assumed 3000 posts ago that some groups of numbers will be drawn more than others.

If there is a fog, it's about finding a scientific method that produces a group of 28 numbers that will have a five number match 5 times in the next 60 drawings. We're not even looking for one of the 19,000 groups, but just a method to find 28 numbers that will gets a 1:12 ratio of five number matches. If your vast knowledge of math and scientific approaches are that superior to ours, it should be simple for you.

It makes no sense to show the results of a Monte Carlo simulation that proves even some QPs numbers will have better odds over time if you're trying to prove all numbers had the same odds over the same time period. And it makes even less sense to show a pick-3 simulation when the discussion is about MM numbers.

"You might also check out the BASIC code I published of a roulette simulation."

That might be useful if the same codes were used to generate QPs by lottery terminals and the same code was used for the drawings, but it isn't. To you our approach might not be scientific, but it's based on the fact in every MM drawing 51 numbers won't be drawn and we're simply trying to eliminate using 28 of them. And we already knew it was possible a RNG group of 28 numbers could get the same results making your Monte Carlo simulation unnecessary.

"You'll have to refresh MY memory of the 50,000 "mythical" players you refer to."

"Of the 50,000 "People" who played for 13.7 years..."

As if 50,000 real players would play $1 QP in every drawing for the next 5000 drawings always betting $1 to win $500 regardless of how much they were ahead or hooked. The results showed how many players were out over $500 after 5000 drawings. I suppose to it make sense to you real players out $1000 or more after 4999 drawings would still make a $1 bet to win $500 on the last bet.

But since they are not real players, you can use whatever "scientific methods" you choose to you get your desired results.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7295 Posts Offline

Posted: December 30, 2012, 9:46 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on December 30, 2012

Ronnie, you'r a nut. I'm actually one of the most Conservative people I know, and I can assure you that I'm way more fiscally conservative than almost any member on this site. Progressivism disguists me, but that's a topic for another site.

I'm done writing actual points, b/c your so nutty you somehow take them as the opposite of what I say.

I agree with Jimmy, the people on this site are profoundly ignorant. And there's nothing I can do for most of them.

I will make one last reply in regard to Stack47 quoting me at some point, and if anyone cares to have a constructive discussion, I will.

If you want to put words in my mouth, call me a liberal, make up your own definitions for words, or just ignore the points I make then I will not respond anymore.

"I agree with Jimmy, the people on this site are profoundly ignorant."

It's a site that discusses lottery games and lottery related topics and while many of the threads are redundant, it doesn't mean most of the posters are ignorant. Maybe it is out of ignorance of the amount of play on the $400 million plus MM and PB jackpots that some members believe there will be $1 billion jackpots using the same matrix, but because there is a tiny possibility not all combos will be sold, there is a tiny possibility those jackpots won't be hit.

It's only human nature that anyone buying a ticket trying to win a monster jackpot will day dream even for just a moment about spending the winnings with or without knowledge of the overwhelming odds against doing it.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: December 31, 2012, 11:08 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on December 30, 2012

"What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient."

Whatever knowledge of math and scientific mythology you claim to have was useless in this discussion. But then again you never understood common sense in the past so I doubt you'll understand it now.

From the beginning we discussed the possibility of specific groups of 28 numbers having better chances of having a five number and specifically in the MM game. After about 3000 posts, you decided to "help lift the fog that seems to have settled on this thread" by running a Monte Carlo simulation on a pick-3 game. The results you showed proved what we assumed 3000 posts ago that some groups of numbers will be drawn more than others.

If there is a fog, it's about finding a scientific method that produces a group of 28 numbers that will have a five number match 5 times in the next 60 drawings. We're not even looking for one of the 19,000 groups, but just a method to find 28 numbers that will gets a 1:12 ratio of five number matches. If your vast knowledge of math and scientific approaches are that superior to ours, it should be simple for you.

It makes no sense to show the results of a Monte Carlo simulation that proves even some QPs numbers will have better odds over time if you're trying to prove all numbers had the same odds over the same time period. And it makes even less sense to show a pick-3 simulation when the discussion is about MM numbers.

"You might also check out the BASIC code I published of a roulette simulation."

That might be useful if the same codes were used to generate QPs by lottery terminals and the same code was used for the drawings, but it isn't. To you our approach might not be scientific, but it's based on the fact in every MM drawing 51 numbers won't be drawn and we're simply trying to eliminate using 28 of them. And we already knew it was possible a RNG group of 28 numbers could get the same results making your Monte Carlo simulation unnecessary.

"You'll have to refresh MY memory of the 50,000 "mythical" players you refer to."

"Of the 50,000 "People" who played for 13.7 years..."

As if 50,000 real players would play $1 QP in every drawing for the next 5000 drawings always betting $1 to win $500 regardless of how much they were ahead or hooked. The results showed how many players were out over $500 after 5000 drawings. I suppose to it make sense to you real players out $1000 or more after 4999 drawings would still make a $1 bet to win $500 on the last bet.

But since they are not real players, you can use whatever "scientific methods" you choose to you get your desired results.

If there is a fog, it's about finding a scientific method that produces a group of 28 numbers that will have a five number match 5 times in the next 60 drawings. We're not even looking for one of the 19,000 groups, but just a method to find 28 numbers that will gets a 1:12 ratio of five number matches. If your vast knowledge of math and scientific approaches are that superior to ours, it should be simple for you.

Excellent point Stack,

the Jimmies who have decided to become active on this thread act like solving a problem that has never been solved before is some type of absurd bizarre behavior that should be ridiculed and condemned as outlandish and ridiculous. Funny too that they always resort to name calling when they run out of negative things to say.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: December 31, 2012, 11:36 am - IP Logged

Perhaps Jimmy could find a BETTER way to use his extraordinary and profound knowledge of math and scientific method and help us solve the problem at hand

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7295 Posts Offline

Posted: December 31, 2012, 1:39 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on December 31, 2012

If there is a fog, it's about finding a scientific method that produces a group of 28 numbers that will have a five number match 5 times in the next 60 drawings. We're not even looking for one of the 19,000 groups, but just a method to find 28 numbers that will gets a 1:12 ratio of five number matches. If your vast knowledge of math and scientific approaches are that superior to ours, it should be simple for you.

Excellent point Stack,

the Jimmies who have decided to become active on this thread act like solving a problem that has never been solved before is some type of absurd bizarre behavior that should be ridiculed and condemned as outlandish and ridiculous. Funny too that they always resort to name calling when they run out of negative things to say.

Saying groups of 28 numbers will match five numbers in five consecutive isn't plus or minus the standard deviation of probability, but a fact. And the question of is it mathematically possible to reduce the 98,280 combos into a more realistic number was answered too. We're not even talking about playing the same group of 28 numbers in every drawing and have no confirmed system that will average a five number match 5 times out of 60 drawings yet we're being told it's impossible to beat the same probability that they proved deviates.

We already know some QP players benefit because of the deviations and I have no idea why Jimmy thought it was necessary to show us. Most $5 QP players are ignorant of the mathematical benefits of abbreviated wheels simply because they don't intend to bet more on any one drawing. Even if your predictions consistently matched five numbers, I wouldn't expect $5 QP players to wager $94 on a 3 if 5 wheel, $41 on a 2 if 2 wheel, and will never wager $5000 on a 4 if 4 wheel.

I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say "each number has an equal chance of being drawn" knowing 51 numbers won't be drawn.

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

Posted: December 31, 2012, 1:55 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on December 31, 2012

Saying groups of 28 numbers will match five numbers in five consecutive isn't plus or minus the standard deviation of probability, but a fact. And the question of is it mathematically possible to reduce the 98,280 combos into a more realistic number was answered too. We're not even talking about playing the same group of 28 numbers in every drawing and have no confirmed system that will average a five number match 5 times out of 60 drawings yet we're being told it's impossible to beat the same probability that they proved deviates.

We already know some QP players benefit because of the deviations and I have no idea why Jimmy thought it was necessary to show us. Most $5 QP players are ignorant of the mathematical benefits of abbreviated wheels simply because they don't intend to bet more on any one drawing. Even if your predictions consistently matched five numbers, I wouldn't expect $5 QP players to wager $94 on a 3 if 5 wheel, $41 on a 2 if 2 wheel, and will never wager $5000 on a 4 if 4 wheel.

I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say "each number has an equal chance of being drawn" knowing 51 numbers won't be drawn.

How are we coming along with our filtering by decades?

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

Posted: December 31, 2012, 4:24 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on December 31, 2012

Saying groups of 28 numbers will match five numbers in five consecutive isn't plus or minus the standard deviation of probability, but a fact. And the question of is it mathematically possible to reduce the 98,280 combos into a more realistic number was answered too. We're not even talking about playing the same group of 28 numbers in every drawing and have no confirmed system that will average a five number match 5 times out of 60 drawings yet we're being told it's impossible to beat the same probability that they proved deviates.

We already know some QP players benefit because of the deviations and I have no idea why Jimmy thought it was necessary to show us. Most $5 QP players are ignorant of the mathematical benefits of abbreviated wheels simply because they don't intend to bet more on any one drawing. Even if your predictions consistently matched five numbers, I wouldn't expect $5 QP players to wager $94 on a 3 if 5 wheel, $41 on a 2 if 2 wheel, and will never wager $5000 on a 4 if 4 wheel.

I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say "each number has an equal chance of being drawn" knowing 51 numbers won't be drawn.

Stack47,

"I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say 'each number has an equal chance of being drawn..........'

That's right.

People around the world discovered long ago that "You can't get blood out of a turnip." In an analogous way, this is what many of you are trying do while selecting your lottery numbers. This is not a symptom of stupidity, or lunacy, it isInnumeracy.But this, I'm sure, won't deter you from your quest.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: December 31, 2012, 4:40 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on December 31, 2012

Stack47,

"I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say 'each number has an equal chance of being drawn..........'

That's right.

People around the world discovered long ago that "You can't get blood out of a turnip." In an analogous way, this is what many of you are trying do while selecting your lottery numbers. This is not a symptom of stupidity, or lunacy, it isInnumeracy.But this, I'm sure, won't deter you from your quest.

Search on!

--Jimmy4164

P.S. Happy New Year!

It is all too obvious that you are NOT a lottery play Jimbo........

And you have no intensions of ever making an effort ti win.......

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

Posted: December 31, 2012, 5:47 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on December 31, 2012

Saying groups of 28 numbers will match five numbers in five consecutive isn't plus or minus the standard deviation of probability, but a fact. And the question of is it mathematically possible to reduce the 98,280 combos into a more realistic number was answered too. We're not even talking about playing the same group of 28 numbers in every drawing and have no confirmed system that will average a five number match 5 times out of 60 drawings yet we're being told it's impossible to beat the same probability that they proved deviates.

We already know some QP players benefit because of the deviations and I have no idea why Jimmy thought it was necessary to show us. Most $5 QP players are ignorant of the mathematical benefits of abbreviated wheels simply because they don't intend to bet more on any one drawing. Even if your predictions consistently matched five numbers, I wouldn't expect $5 QP players to wager $94 on a 3 if 5 wheel, $41 on a 2 if 2 wheel, and will never wager $5000 on a 4 if 4 wheel.

I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say "each number has an equal chance of being drawn" knowing 51 numbers won't be drawn.

Stack47,

"I guess it's just more intellectually sound to say 'each number has an equal chance of being drawn..........'

That's right.

People around the world discovered long ago that "You can't get blood out of a turnip." In an analogous way, this is what many of you are trying do while selecting your lottery numbers. This is not a symptom of stupidity, or lunacy, it isInnumeracy.But this, I'm sure, won't deter you from your quest.