Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 7:11 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 215 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:52 am - IP Logged

I have to go with Boney on this one too....... Everyone should keep a spare bridge around, at ALL times.

And a spare parachute.  Especially when a Republican is in office.


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 3, 2013, 10:58 am - IP Logged

    And a spare parachute.  Especially when a Republican is in office.

    All the golden ones have been taken...... Only failure to deploy chutes left.....  Sorry bout boneys luck...


      United States
      Member #124493
      March 14, 2012
      7023 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 3, 2013, 11:04 am - IP Logged

      All the golden ones have been taken...... Only failure to deploy chutes left.....  Sorry bout boneys luck...

      Maybe boney could coast with his reptilian appendages?


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 3, 2013, 11:34 am - IP Logged

        If that's the case, why not prepare an article for one of the math or science journals?  A more modest approach might be to establish an account at Wikipedia and present your ideas there.

        For one thing those who crunch with scientific method have limited time.  So the time it takes to prepare an article could potentially be self-defeating in the effort to win a Jackpot.  Just the time replying to this post is cutting into my workout time, and I will need to make adjustments accordingly.

        Second a wikipedia article might be interesting but at some point you stop trying to sway the infidels.  I mean for petes sake, they dont even have the flag formation on wikipedia, so as far as a good source of knowledge, i have to think twice.

        Third as far as mathworks is concerned they wouldn't believe it any way.

        LottoBoner,

        "Third as far as mathworks is concerned they wouldn't believe it any way."

        How can you be sure this is true unless you approach them?

        Why do YOU think they wouldn't believe it?

        As for the absence of the "Flag Formation" at Wikipedia, I provided the necessary information above to help you rectify that omission.

        --Jimmy4164

          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #99032
          October 18, 2010
          1439 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 3, 2013, 11:49 am - IP Logged

          I've already explained 487:1 (from the chart) is not 1 in 487 and the 487:1 is for 792 chances which would be 487/792 or roughly 2/3.   Can you explain your logic for thinking 487:1 is the same as 1:487?

          RJOh, I'm pretty sure you were right, but I've decided not to go and double check.  (I'm pretty sure I made an error when I plugged in the numbers, one of my multiplication signs was probably a division sign by mistake, giving me a number way off the mark.)

           

          The crazies on this board will have a great time posting insane non sense if I try to do anything using logic and math, so I'm just gonna leave this alone....

           

           Ronnie and LottoBoner (nice name, BTW.  It's no wonder you so harshly defend anything lottery related, even if it's total nonsense)

          BTW, WTH are you guys smoking?  Reptiles.... Twin Towers..... what the hell are you talking about?  Like I said before GET A GRIP.  These are YOUR WORDS not mine.

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7322 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 3, 2013, 12:47 pm - IP Logged

            Don't take this ass clown seriously Stack...... Only a schizo would post extremely sarcastic comments and then IN THE VERY NEXT POST claim that he was being sincere and criticize the responses. 

            FYI.... Jimmy4164 started this exchange by referring to people on this thread as ignorant and buffoons.....

            I've never taken Jimmy or his math serious because it's all based on his personal agenda. He refuses to acknowledged thousands of groups of 28 numbers will always match five numbers in five consecutive drawings to promote his views it's impossible for some number combos to get better odds. We're just exploring the possibilities of using a statistical fact to occasionally get better odds.

            Jimmy gave the results of his Monte Carlo simulation. He claimed there were a few "lucky" players that don't know they benefited by statistical probability. If he runs the same simulation 25,000 more times there will always be a few "lucky" players benefiting, but his hypocrisy won't allow him to mention exploring the possibility of trying to benefit by that statistical probability. He wants to pretend the statistical probability his simulation produced doesn't exist just like he is trying to pretend the statistical fact we're exploring doesn't exist either.

            He is so obsessed with telling people what they already know, he even suggested I send a statistical fact to a "premier mathematical software publisher" and tell them what they should already know.

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19831 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 3, 2013, 12:48 pm - IP Logged

              Looks like my losing numbers were stinky enough to MISS all 5 winning numbers. 

              Chalk up another point for....... Getting BETTER ODDS is so easy a buffoon could do it.........

              Wednesday, January 02, 2013      18 · 20 · 28 · 35 · 53    20        $50 Million

              In a earlier post I showed your odds of matching 0 with 12 numbers in MM are 487/792 or roughly 2:3. With PB those odds are 500/792 or roughly 2:3 also.

              If your intent is to post 12 losing numbers for every PB and MM drawings, odds are you're going to be right only two of three posts.

              On the other hand your odds of having the 5 winning PB numbers are 1:6,321 and MM are 1:4,823

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

                RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                mid-Ohio
                United States
                Member #9
                March 24, 2001
                19831 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 3, 2013, 1:07 pm - IP Logged

                LottoBoner,

                "Third as far as mathworks is concerned they wouldn't believe it any way."

                How can you be sure this is true unless you approach them?

                Why do YOU think they wouldn't believe it?

                As for the absence of the "Flag Formation" at Wikipedia, I provided the necessary information above to help you rectify that omission.

                --Jimmy4164

                "As for the absence of the "Flag Formation" at Wikipedia, I provided the necessary information above to help you rectify that omission."

                You know no educated mathematician takes the crap Gail Howard writes seriously.  Weren't you really saying you had provided the necessary information for LottoBoner to make a clown of himself in a public forum where the critics are more knowledgeable and formidable than those at LP.

                If anyone was going to do that, it should be Gail Howard and there's no way that's ever going to happen.

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

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7322 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 3, 2013, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

                  Stack47,

                  Your responses to both of the clips you quoted from my post are very telling.  And in a way, they're puzzling.  Look above.   In response to me encouraging you to present your potentially revolutionary ideas to a premier mathematical software publisher, instead of thanking me and making inquiries at Mathworks, you go on the defensive and make statements clearly indicating you are not confident in your beliefs. Perhaps you feel your ideas need to be peer reviewed before presenting them to a potential employer or publisher.  If that's the case, why not prepare an article for one of the math or science journals?  A more modest approach might be to establish an account at Wikipedia and present your ideas there.

                  This should get you started:

                  http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Getting_started

                  --Jimmy4164

                  "Your responses to both of the clips you quoted from my post are very telling."

                  The only thing telling is your inability to provide any useful and non-boring information. Did I say I discovered a revolutionary idea, NO. Did I say I was considering publishing any article about ordinary mathematical statistics that most people should already know, NO.

                  You're not the first person that went on a 4 day trip to Vegas and lost their gambling stake in the first two hours and got bored with watching TV in their room and read the Wizard of Odds gambling articles to pass the time. From what you've posted in this forum, you want us to believe the house edge was a well kept secret the Wiz discovered using the Freedom of Information Act.

                  Do you have anything to add that even a few of the LP members may find somewhat interesting?


                    United States
                    Member #124493
                    March 14, 2012
                    7023 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 3, 2013, 3:51 pm - IP Logged

                    "As for the absence of the "Flag Formation" at Wikipedia, I provided the necessary information above to help you rectify that omission."

                    You know no educated mathematician takes the crap Gail Howard writes seriously.  Weren't you really saying you had provided the necessary information for LottoBoner to make a clown of himself in a public forum where the critics are more knowledgeable and formidable than those at LP.

                    If anyone was going to do that, it should be Gail Howard and there's no way that's ever going to happen.

                    You know no educated mathematician takes the crap Gail Howard writes seriously.

                    Any educated mathematician would also say that 100 documented winners was a fluke.

                    A statistical anomaly. A Deviation from the Norm.

                    Gail Howard Theory is vital to winning a jackpot because she gives good examples of what types of patterns a player needs to look for in order to "get better odds"

                    Her promotion of the 0/1/2-5 pattern is interesting, but in my opinion it takes second place to the 0/1/2 - 4 pattern, which in turn takes second place to the 0/1/2 - 3 pattern and so on and so on until you get to the best pattern of them all.  The 0-0-0-0 pattern.

                      Her book is very good.  Could it be better regarding the flag formation as it pertains to a driving a force in the randomization of numbers?  Then yes.

                    Would a good explanation of the standard deviation in various flag formation patterns be important and sublimely interesting?  Well yes again. 

                    GH is as droney says, a great marketer.  But her wealth is derived mainly in my opinion, in the marketing of wheels, and wheeling systems and wheeling programs.  And if you are going to fault her on that, then you might as well fault todd for offering abbreviated wheels with upgraded memberships.

                    GH is retired mostly from the circuit, that is why less people win, because she doesn't answer any HARD questions anymore, like she used to regarding the lottery, and the LFF, and frankly there is nobody that can. (Maybe Richard Lustig can, he has some good luck) but I already asked him and he didn't answer.  (if that is even him)

                    GH played in New York, and I sincerely believe her dissemination of knowledge is what prompted NYL to turn a 6/40 +1  into a 6/59 +1

                    That is the only explanation, and yes GH did get a 5/6 in New York, and I think that's darn good because I have not been able to do that yet in my 6/59 +1 or my 6/40Snowman


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 3, 2013, 4:03 pm - IP Logged

                      "Your responses to both of the clips you quoted from my post are very telling."

                      The only thing telling is your inability to provide any useful and non-boring information. Did I say I discovered a revolutionary idea, NO. Did I say I was considering publishing any article about ordinary mathematical statistics that most people should already know, NO.

                      You're not the first person that went on a 4 day trip to Vegas and lost their gambling stake in the first two hours and got bored with watching TV in their room and read the Wizard of Odds gambling articles to pass the time. From what you've posted in this forum, you want us to believe the house edge was a well kept secret the Wiz discovered using the Freedom of Information Act.

                      Do you have anything to add that even a few of the LP members may find somewhat interesting?

                      Stack47,

                      If YOU don't believe you've discovered someing revolutionary, then this entire thread is much ado about nothing! 

                      In your excitement over the difference in the odds of selecting 5 from 28 versus 56, be sure to remember how many balls there are in those machines when they conduct the draw.

                      Keep on searching; who knows, you just might get lucky!

                      --Jimmy4164

                        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                        New Jersey
                        United States
                        Member #99032
                        October 18, 2010
                        1439 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 3, 2013, 5:30 pm - IP Logged

                        I've never taken Jimmy or his math serious because it's all based on his personal agenda. He refuses to acknowledged thousands of groups of 28 numbers will always match five numbers in five consecutive drawings to promote his views it's impossible for some number combos to get better odds. We're just exploring the possibilities of using a statistical fact to occasionally get better odds.

                        Jimmy gave the results of his Monte Carlo simulation. He claimed there were a few "lucky" players that don't know they benefited by statistical probability. If he runs the same simulation 25,000 more times there will always be a few "lucky" players benefiting, but his hypocrisy won't allow him to mention exploring the possibility of trying to benefit by that statistical probability. He wants to pretend the statistical probability his simulation produced doesn't exist just like he is trying to pretend the statistical fact we're exploring doesn't exist either.

                        He is so obsessed with telling people what they already know, he even suggested I send a statistical fact to a "premier mathematical software publisher" and tell them what they should already know.

                        Of course.....  he's promoting a person agenda lol.Disapprove

                         

                        He's just using mathemtical proof, and provable concepts, to explain the nature of these games.  Your silly argument about thosands of groups of numbers matching multiple drawings holds no bearing over the odds.  What you're explaining is basically innevitable to find those patterns in a fair game, which no combo has better odds.

                         

                        If you guys don't get that, it's not our problem, nor is it his.  You guys are just chasing a silly dream, and those of you who get lucky will think it was skill.

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99032
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 3, 2013, 5:33 pm - IP Logged

                          In a earlier post I showed your odds of matching 0 with 12 numbers in MM are 487/792 or roughly 2:3. With PB those odds are 500/792 or roughly 2:3 also.

                          If your intent is to post 12 losing numbers for every PB and MM drawings, odds are you're going to be right only two of three posts.

                          On the other hand your odds of having the 5 winning PB numbers are 1:6,321 and MM are 1:4,823

                          No, but, see, you don't get his logic.

                           

                          On the days he was right he had better odds.  The days he was wrong didn't exist.

                           

                          That's how he makes his odds better, by ignoring the days when his odds were worse.  It really works.... in his head.

                            Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                            New Jersey
                            United States
                            Member #99032
                            October 18, 2010
                            1439 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 3, 2013, 5:37 pm - IP Logged

                            You know no educated mathematician takes the crap Gail Howard writes seriously.

                            Any educated mathematician would also say that 100 documented winners was a fluke.

                            A statistical anomaly. A Deviation from the Norm.

                            Gail Howard Theory is vital to winning a jackpot because she gives good examples of what types of patterns a player needs to look for in order to "get better odds"

                            Her promotion of the 0/1/2-5 pattern is interesting, but in my opinion it takes second place to the 0/1/2 - 4 pattern, which in turn takes second place to the 0/1/2 - 3 pattern and so on and so on until you get to the best pattern of them all.  The 0-0-0-0 pattern.

                              Her book is very good.  Could it be better regarding the flag formation as it pertains to a driving a force in the randomization of numbers?  Then yes.

                            Would a good explanation of the standard deviation in various flag formation patterns be important and sublimely interesting?  Well yes again. 

                            GH is as droney says, a great marketer.  But her wealth is derived mainly in my opinion, in the marketing of wheels, and wheeling systems and wheeling programs.  And if you are going to fault her on that, then you might as well fault todd for offering abbreviated wheels with upgraded memberships.

                            GH is retired mostly from the circuit, that is why less people win, because she doesn't answer any HARD questions anymore, like she used to regarding the lottery, and the LFF, and frankly there is nobody that can. (Maybe Richard Lustig can, he has some good luck) but I already asked him and he didn't answer.  (if that is even him)

                            GH played in New York, and I sincerely believe her dissemination of knowledge is what prompted NYL to turn a 6/40 +1  into a 6/59 +1

                            That is the only explanation, and yes GH did get a 5/6 in New York, and I think that's darn good because I have not been able to do that yet in my 6/59 +1 or my 6/40Snowman

                            Yes, I do believe Gail Howard is simply a great marketer.  That is it.  She doesn't win money playing the lottery, she makes money convincing shmucks they can win.  I don't fault her for it, I guess that's the same thing Poker players do every day.  The point is, I won't advocate being a brainless drone and falling for her BS.  Wheels are available online free, and to be quite frank, I'm sure the wheeling generator on LP is better, but I don't use it and I rarely play lottery anymore anyway.  I have one wheel for the NJ Cash 5 that I play when their's a huge jackpot, I don't need to spend any more money on Lottery.

                             

                            As for Richard Lustig, you realize that the guy makes all his money by selling books right?  That he's taken huge lottery losses?  He may have one a few jackpots, but his first one or two were probably pure luck.  After that, he sold books and bought so many tickets a day he was more likely to keep winning on occassion than never get another jackpot again, allowing him to sell more books to suckers.

                             

                            Essentially, he's a degenerate gambler and author to other degenerate gamblers.  It's a crazy world.

                              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                              mid-Ohio
                              United States
                              Member #9
                              March 24, 2001
                              19831 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 3, 2013, 6:39 pm - IP Logged

                              sorry

                              there is 50 in the 0 i miss

                              so 0-is 5

                              What point were you trying to make?

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

                                 
                                Page 215 of 353