Welcome Guest
You last visited April 20, 2018, 4:11 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 5 years ago by rdgrnr.

 Page 218 of 353

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:22 pm - IP Logged

LB ,

You're right its the Ebb and Flow you must Find . That why you Must use Wave Form Analysis and Regression Analysis to create the Right Data for Future game play .

CW4

That why you Must use Wave Form Analysis and Regression Analysis

ΨÍΕΓÐ•ŠΡÉÅΚ

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:27 pm - IP Logged

What he basically said, in overly complex terms is "if you pick lots of huge groups of numbers, some will go on streaks."  Is that really suprising?  That out of the huge amounts of possibile combinations of 28 numbers will appear to be on a streak?  That's not odd, that's expected.  And it means nothing in terms of your picks winning in the future.

Please explain why one person can play 175k lines for an extended period and never hit 5 of 5 and another person can play 98k lines and hit 5 of 5 over and over and over? Is it just "luck" Boney? Or is it at all remotely possible that there is something more to it? Im just making observations here and asking????

At the very least I would think that putting the buffoon under observation might be in order?

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:29 pm - IP Logged

That why you Must use Wave Form Analysis and Regression Analysis

ΨÍΕΓÐ•ŠΡÉÅΚ

I like Wave Form Analysis and  Regression Analysis regardless of what it is................

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:34 pm - IP Logged

And you Jimmy, in a short term trial all players posted better than average wins (except Boney) does that mean anything at all to you.........?????????

Ronnie316,

"...does that mean anything at all to you.........?????????"

Yes, definitely!  It means that "...in a short term trial all players posted better than average wins (except Boney)..."

Your understanding might be improving a little.  I'm encouraged to see you used the word "wins" above and not "odds," since wins and losses will vary, but odds are constant, and determined by the rules of the game.

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:34 pm - IP Logged

Set of 12 eliminations for MM. Fri. Jan. 4, 2013.

02 14 18 20 22 25 30 36 37 40 43 54

By successfully eliminating 12 numbers from the number pool I have BETTER ODDS of hitting 5 of 5.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:42 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

"...does that mean anything at all to you.........?????????"

Yes, definitely!  It means that "...in a short term trial all players posted better than average wins (except Boney)..."

Your understanding might be improving a little.  I'm encouraged to see you used the word "wins" above and not "odds," since wins and losses will vary, but odds are constant, and determined by the rules of the game.

--Jimmy4164

Im glad switching the words around makes you feel BETTER Jimmy. Perhaps I should scrap this thread and start one named.... "Do Ronnie316s number combinations have better odds?

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:49 pm - IP Logged

Im glad switching the words around makes you feel BETTER Jimmy. Perhaps I should scrap this thread and start one named.... "Do Ronnie316s number combinations have better odds?

Better yet you should rename the thread, how to get more wins and better odds without pissing off boney and jimmy delicate semantical sensibilities.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7685 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:55 pm - IP Logged

And you Jimmy, in a short term trial all players posted better than average wins (except Boney) does that mean anything at all to you.........?????????

Jimmy already explained the effect of standard deviation on probability using his handy dandy Monte Carlo simulation. He will say you just benefited by a better than expected STD and then hypocritically say it's impossible for any number combination to have better odds.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

Better yet you should rename the thread, how to get more wins and better odds without pissing off boney and jimmy delicate semantical sensibilities.

I have to wonder if a defeatist attitude causes some number combinations to have worse odds??

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 8:00 pm - IP Logged

LB ,

You're right its the Ebb and Flow you must Find . That why you Must use Wave Form Analysis and Regression Analysis to create the Right Data for Future game play .

CW4

CajunWin4,

"That why you Must use Wave Form Analysis and Regression Analysis to create the Right Data for Future game play."

Before wasting your time trying to apply these advanced analysis techniques to the Random Processes of the lottery, you really should study what they analyze and what they are typically used for.  Those of us who know what they are and have used them would never dream of applying them to a known random process.  If you believe there is larceny in the ranks of the state programmers of computer generated draws, or short, simple cycles in their RNGs, do you really think they would be dumb enough to generate measurable wave patterns so that anyone other than them could get rich?  And if you think that past results in the ping pong ball machine data has predictive ability, check out the Gambler's Fallacy section here...

http://www.wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 8:00 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy already explained the effect of standard deviation on probability using his handy dandy Monte Carlo simulation. He will say you just benefited by a better than expected STD and then hypocritically say it's impossible for any number combination to have better odds.

He did admit that's its ok to call it a "better win rate" instead of "better odds"

upstate NY
United States
Member #108791
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 8:01 pm - IP Logged

This is stating to be bizarre Boney.

If a person gets BETTER ODDS on a consistent basis does that count for anything with you??

"Better odds" do not exist because you say so.  And really, that's been the crux of your argument:  "I get better odds because I say so."

Positive results do not equate to "better odds".  Odds are the probability that something WILL happen, results are what you get AFTER something already happened.  The only way you can alter the odds of winning is by altering the actual game matrix, and since you are not on the board of MUSL, you cannot do that.  The only way you can alter your own personal odds is by buying more lines, and that's not what you're doing here.  Offering a set of 15, 18, 20, or 25 numbers that might contain the winning numbers does not alter the odds.  You have not changed the game matrix, you have merely chosen a wheel.

A massive ego does not equate to "better odds".  The ONLY thing you've been able to hold over Boney so far is that you've been better than he at guessing numbers.  If Boney ever gets on the same lucky streak you had, all of a sudden he's got "better odds" than you, at least by your rules.  You'll have been beaten at your own game.  My, what a shot to your ego that will be.

As I said before, if you truly have developed a knack for guessing numbers, congratulations.  But it doesn't mean you have "better odds", no matter how badly you wish it does or how often you tell yourself it does.

But, quite frankly, I don't know why any of us are wasting our time on you.  If you truly believe that good guesses and better odds are the same thing, you're delusional.  And it's painful watching someone like Stack, who I thought was an intelligent guy, weave together these tortured attempts at translating your hubris into actual mathematical principles.  You're not doing something to benefit all lottery players, you're running a modified version of Maddog's challenge and then gloating when you do better than people you don't like.  You should be ashamed of yourself, but your 15-post-a-day ego trip makes it clear that you have no shame.

Insult me all you want.  (I know you will, you can't resist it.  That's just who you are.)  I'm done with this clusterf*** of a thread.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

CajunWin4,

"That why you Must use Wave Form Analysis and Regression Analysis to create the Right Data for Future game play."

Before wasting your time trying to apply these advanced analysis techniques to the Random Processes of the lottery, you really should study what they analyze and what they are typically used for.  Those of us who know what they are and have used them would never dream of applying them to a known random process.  If you believe there is larceny in the ranks of the state programmers of computer generated draws, or short, simple cycles in their RNGs, do you really think they would be dumb enough to generate measurable wave patterns so that anyone other than them could get rich?  And if you think that past results in the ping pong ball machine data has predictive ability, check out the Gambler's Fallacy section here...

http://www.wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

--Jimmy4164

I think your too late for Cajun, he already learned how to win while you were out losing.

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 8:05 pm - IP Logged

"Better odds" do not exist because you say so.  And really, that's been the crux of your argument:  "I get better odds because I say so."

Positive results do not equate to "better odds".  Odds are the probability that something WILL happen, results are what you get AFTER something already happened.  The only way you can alter the odds of winning is by altering the actual game matrix, and since you are not on the board of MUSL, you cannot do that.  The only way you can alter your own personal odds is by buying more lines, and that's not what you're doing here.  Offering a set of 15, 18, 20, or 25 numbers that might contain the winning numbers does not alter the odds.  You have not changed the game matrix, you have merely chosen a wheel.

A massive ego does not equate to "better odds".  The ONLY thing you've been able to hold over Boney so far is that you've been better than he at guessing numbers.  If Boney ever gets on the same lucky streak you had, all of a sudden he's got "better odds" than you, at least by your rules.  You'll have been beaten at your own game.  My, what a shot to your ego that will be.

As I said before, if you truly have developed a knack for guessing numbers, congratulations.  But it doesn't mean you have "better odds", no matter how badly you wish it does or how often you tell yourself it does.

But, quite frankly, I don't know why any of us are wasting our time on you.  If you truly believe that good guesses and better odds are the same thing, you're delusional.  And it's painful watching someone like Stack, who I thought was an intelligent guy, weave together these tortured attempts at translating your hubris into actual mathematical principles.  You're not doing something to benefit all lottery players, you're running a modified version of Maddog's challenge and then gloating when you do better than people you don't like.  You should be ashamed of yourself, but your 15-post-a-day ego trip makes it clear that you have no shame.

Insult me all you want.  (I know you will, you can't resist it.  That's just who you are.)  I'm done with this clusterf*** of a thread.

Hey Media.  So far Ronnies simulation has left your simulation in the proverbial dust.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 4, 2013, 8:07 pm - IP Logged

"Better odds" do not exist because you say so.  And really, that's been the crux of your argument:  "I get better odds because I say so."

Positive results do not equate to "better odds".  Odds are the probability that something WILL happen, results are what you get AFTER something already happened.  The only way you can alter the odds of winning is by altering the actual game matrix, and since you are not on the board of MUSL, you cannot do that.  The only way you can alter your own personal odds is by buying more lines, and that's not what you're doing here.  Offering a set of 15, 18, 20, or 25 numbers that might contain the winning numbers does not alter the odds.  You have not changed the game matrix, you have merely chosen a wheel.

A massive ego does not equate to "better odds".  The ONLY thing you've been able to hold over Boney so far is that you've been better than he at guessing numbers.  If Boney ever gets on the same lucky streak you had, all of a sudden he's got "better odds" than you, at least by your rules.  You'll have been beaten at your own game.  My, what a shot to your ego that will be.

As I said before, if you truly have developed a knack for guessing numbers, congratulations.  But it doesn't mean you have "better odds", no matter how badly you wish it does or how often you tell yourself it does.

But, quite frankly, I don't know why any of us are wasting our time on you.  If you truly believe that good guesses and better odds are the same thing, you're delusional.  And it's painful watching someone like Stack, who I thought was an intelligent guy, weave together these tortured attempts at translating your hubris into actual mathematical principles.  You're not doing something to benefit all lottery players, you're running a modified version of Maddog's challenge and then gloating when you do better than people you don't like.  You should be ashamed of yourself, but your 15-post-a-day ego trip makes it clear that you have no shame.

Insult me all you want.  (I know you will, you can't resist it.  That's just who you are.)  I'm done with this clusterf*** of a thread.

No insult intended, it was your failure to hit 5 of 5 that got this thread started in the first place. Some simple math told me that you would have hit in about 9.6 years. I was only trying to improve slightly on that and did it 5 times in 30 draws. Either I did something right or you were doing something wrong. I wonder??

 Page 218 of 353