Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 19, 2017, 4:45 am
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 247 of 353
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #57793
January 19, 2008
2367 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 11:53 am - IP Logged

It has taken 2 hours to read this, wow way to on this subject Ronnie316 so many post.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 11:53 am - IP Logged

Now there is an opinion that I can even agree with. Nice work Boney. lol. lol.

You realize that I was disagreeing with you, right?

I was explaining that the reason they call them "overall" is because they're adding up the values of a bunch of specifics.

In otherwords, the word "overall" does not suggest that the odds aren't constant, like you keep saying.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7343 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 1:36 pm - IP Logged

The ODDS of a game are a function of the rules of the game, and don't change unless the rules change.  When you buy more tickets, the ODDS also stay the same, because the rules did not change.   IF you divide your [actual or expected] winnings by the amount you pay for your tickets, you'll see what I mean.

If you really believe the lottery commissions would find it necessary to send people to "disrupt" your ability to "discover" ways to win "on purpose," then you have a bigger problem than I originally thought.

Looking over your posts made during the many hours you have here without "disruption" I get impatient waiting for you and/or Stack47 to show us how to choose one of the CORRECT subsets of 28 numbers in the Megamillions game.

"I get impatient waiting for you and/or Stack47 to show us how to choose one of the CORRECT subsets of 28 numbers in the Megamillions game."

When Ronnie ran his test, five of his groups of 28 numbers matched five numbers and one of those matched the bonus number. Before the test, the conversation was about easy to identify groups like all high or all low and all even or all odd. The question was "is it possible to find other groups that will get at least 2 five number matches in 39 drawings?".

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/14

Ronnie made his objectives known on June 18, "The point is a person only has to win the JP once  to turn a profit.  In my lines I'm playing now, if I can overcome the 1 in 38 odds against me I am now hoping I will also overcome the 1 in 46 odds against me, and hit on the number 8 mega ball." and proved it could be done on August 10.

On August 9, Ronnie said "How long til I hit 5+1? We don't know because its never been done by intelligent design." , hit the next drawing, and now you're getting impatient because he hasn't duplicated what he trying to do ONCE.

"The ODDS of a game are a function of the rules of the game, and don't change unless the rules change."

At best the majority of your remarks don't even deserve a "how about that". We already know the odds of the game and we know the odds of the jackpot being won increase when more tickets are played. Why do believe it's necessary to continue to lecture us about the things we already know?

If we were talking about the NFC championship game, you would interrupt the conversation by saying "the Falcons will lose if the 49ers score more points".

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7343 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 1:42 pm - IP Logged

You realize that I was disagreeing with you, right?

I was explaining that the reason they call them "overall" is because they're adding up the values of a bunch of specifics.

In otherwords, the word "overall" does not suggest that the odds aren't constant, like you keep saying.

If the odds are constant, why does it say the odds against matching the bonus number is 1 in 75 when any self pick player can match the bonus number by playing all 46 bonus numbers?

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4076 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 3:39 pm - IP Logged

If the odds are constant, why does it say the odds against matching the bonus number is 1 in 75 when any self pick player can match the bonus number by playing all 46 bonus numbers?

Stack47

That's a good one, made me laugh out loud.   Maybe those odds are for QP players.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 4:54 pm - IP Logged

It has taken 2 hours to read this, wow way to on this subject Ronnie316 so many post.

lol. Thanks. We just keep grinding away at finding ways to get BETTER ODDS.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 4:58 pm - IP Logged

I am with you on this.  The only way to make any lotto game profitable is by reducing the number pool.  Your efforts to accomplish this are to be commended.  More of us should think this way.

Thanks for the positive input GASMETERGUY Attitude is everything when it comes to picking winning numbers.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 5:14 pm - IP Logged

You realize that I was disagreeing with you, right?

I was explaining that the reason they call them "overall" is because they're adding up the values of a bunch of specifics.

In otherwords, the word "overall" does not suggest that the odds aren't constant, like you keep saying.

What? It would surprise you to find out I was just messin with you all this time?

I can't tell you exactly "how" I got 5 times better odds NOT including hitting the bonus w/ a 5 number match.

But I do believe there is some discovery to be made here.

I believe humans who are TRYING to pick winners can beat RNG picks with ease.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 5:47 pm - IP Logged

"I get impatient waiting for you and/or Stack47 to show us how to choose one of the CORRECT subsets of 28 numbers in the Megamillions game."

When Ronnie ran his test, five of his groups of 28 numbers matched five numbers and one of those matched the bonus number. Before the test, the conversation was about easy to identify groups like all high or all low and all even or all odd. The question was "is it possible to find other groups that will get at least 2 five number matches in 39 drawings?".

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/14

Ronnie made his objectives known on June 18, "The point is a person only has to win the JP once  to turn a profit.  In my lines I'm playing now, if I can overcome the 1 in 38 odds against me I am now hoping I will also overcome the 1 in 46 odds against me, and hit on the number 8 mega ball." and proved it could be done on August 10.

On August 9, Ronnie said "How long til I hit 5+1? We don't know because its never been done by intelligent design." , hit the next drawing, and now you're getting impatient because he hasn't duplicated what he trying to do ONCE.

"The ODDS of a game are a function of the rules of the game, and don't change unless the rules change."

At best the majority of your remarks don't even deserve a "how about that". We already know the odds of the game and we know the odds of the jackpot being won increase when more tickets are played. Why do believe it's necessary to continue to lecture us about the things we already know?

If we were talking about the NFC championship game, you would interrupt the conversation by saying "the Falcons will lose if the 49ers score more points".

Thank you Stack for reiterating the same facts over and over.........

Even if Jimmy never comprehends the "flow" of this thread it's nice of you to make things clear, and perhaps it will serve to help casual readers of this thread to understand our objectives and accomplishments.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 5:59 pm - IP Logged

So there you go boney...............

There is your "indisputable" evidence that a jackpot can be won on purpose by intelligent design. I know you wont agree and may not even respond, but now that its been done it can be done again by others.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2013, 11:47 pm - IP Logged

"I get impatient waiting for you and/or Stack47 to show us how to choose one of the CORRECT subsets of 28 numbers in the Megamillions game."

When Ronnie ran his test, five of his groups of 28 numbers matched five numbers and one of those matched the bonus number. Before the test, the conversation was about easy to identify groups like all high or all low and all even or all odd. The question was "is it possible to find other groups that will get at least 2 five number matches in 39 drawings?".

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/14

Ronnie made his objectives known on June 18, "The point is a person only has to win the JP once  to turn a profit.  In my lines I'm playing now, if I can overcome the 1 in 38 odds against me I am now hoping I will also overcome the 1 in 46 odds against me, and hit on the number 8 mega ball." and proved it could be done on August 10.

On August 9, Ronnie said "How long til I hit 5+1? We don't know because its never been done by intelligent design." , hit the next drawing, and now you're getting impatient because he hasn't duplicated what he trying to do ONCE.

"The ODDS of a game are a function of the rules of the game, and don't change unless the rules change."

At best the majority of your remarks don't even deserve a "how about that". We already know the odds of the game and we know the odds of the jackpot being won increase when more tickets are played. Why do believe it's necessary to continue to lecture us about the things we already know?

If we were talking about the NFC championship game, you would interrupt the conversation by saying "the Falcons will lose if the 49ers score more points".

Stack47,

You said, "Why do believe it's necessary to continue to lecture us about the things we already know?"

Why?

1) When someone admits that one of the mainstays of their scientific bag of tricks used for selecting sets of 28 numbers is "INTUITION," they clearly indicate they do NOT know what they think they know....

...and

2) When that same person proclaims their method works after one of their intuitively selected sets [of 28 numbers] happens to contain the [5] winning numbers randomly selected in a sanctioned lottery draw, they demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Are there any readers out there who would like Stack47 or Ronnie326 to show you the calculations of how many tickets they might expect to purchase over the 39 draws they keep referring to, in order to guarantee their big win? If so, don't be afraid to post a quick reply. Simply say, "YES!"

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7343 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 20, 2013, 12:07 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

You said, "Why do believe it's necessary to continue to lecture us about the things we already know?"

Why?

1) When someone admits that one of the mainstays of their scientific bag of tricks used for selecting sets of 28 numbers is "INTUITION," they clearly indicate they do NOT know what they think they know....

...and

2) When that same person proclaims their method works after one of their intuitively selected sets [of 28 numbers] happens to contain the [5] winning numbers randomly selected in a sanctioned lottery draw, they demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Are there any readers out there who would like Stack47 or Ronnie326 to show you the calculations of how many tickets they might expect to purchase over the 39 draws they keep referring to, in order to guarantee their big win? If so, don't be afraid to post a quick reply. Simply say, "YES!"

--Jimmy4164

Now you're demanding a guarantee in game with over 175 million possibilities. Point out the one post of the 3700 where anybody guaranteed anything.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 20, 2013, 12:24 am - IP Logged

Now you're demanding a guarantee in game with over 175 million possibilities. Point out the one post of the 3700 where anybody guaranteed anything.

Stack47,

Finally!  You are admitting to the reality of the situation.  OK, since we apparently agree that selecting a 28 number subset from which to select your tickets does not guarantee a win, I assume we must, by necessity, agree that there is a certain amount of UNCERTAINTY associated with your methods.

Those of us who rely on traditional probability theory, the same theory employed by physicists to study problems in Quantum Mechanics, believe that your odds of winning for each ticket purchased is 175 Million to 1.

Please, please, give us a ball park estimate of what you believe YOUR improved odds are when you select your numbers from a set of 28, rather than the 56 we traditionalists select from.

--Jimmy4164

Burnsville
United States
Member #107244
March 4, 2011
853 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 20, 2013, 1:17 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

You said, "Why do believe it's necessary to continue to lecture us about the things we already know?"

Why?

1) When someone admits that one of the mainstays of their scientific bag of tricks used for selecting sets of 28 numbers is "INTUITION," they clearly indicate they do NOT know what they think they know....

...and

2) When that same person proclaims their method works after one of their intuitively selected sets [of 28 numbers] happens to contain the [5] winning numbers randomly selected in a sanctioned lottery draw, they demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Are there any readers out there who would like Stack47 or Ronnie326 to show you the calculations of how many tickets they might expect to purchase over the 39 draws they keep referring to, in order to guarantee their big win? If so, don't be afraid to post a quick reply. Simply say, "YES!"

--Jimmy4164

Jimmy4164,

I believe the "intuition" they speak of is an internal knowing of patterns in the data they are and have been working with. It's more of a faith. Faith in knowing that they have seen something over and over and over, and know what they are seeing in their work. Faith, intuition, whatever you want to call it is far more overlooked in the world today and has been cast aside as it appears to be nothing. Like some mythical nothingness. Faith leads to knowledge, and therefore knowing. Intuition and faith, is more than any sientific experiment could ever figure out. Ever. There simply is no scientific experiment available, nor will there ever be, that could comprehend the power of either/or. Ever. Intuition is a knowing without having to see. Like a mother that knows her child is in distress, and they are hundreds or thousands of miles away. It's a feeling much similar to faith. There is no mathematical formula for either. There is no lab experiment for either. No machine can determine the cause and or ability of either. Intuition has probably won more people money on scratch offs alone than you can get the correct statistical data on in a lifetime. And with those, they are nothing but luck. Even with scratchers being "luck", if you know what to look for, you can improve your odds on those. Yes, even those have patterns. From the predetrmined knowing of where the big winners are being sent out to, to the markings on the back of them.

Random, random, random. Random is a term that is used way to loosely on here. Random is happenings that have no specific pattern, nor reason for the way they are. Basically. The lottery is more of a sporadic mechanism. There definitely are patterns. I guarantee you there are patterns. I have seen them many many many times now. You haven't seen my work so you can't agree or disagree with that. My intuition tells me that Ronnie, Stack, RL and every other lottery enthusiast on this site or anywhere, that has a method of picking their own numbers, have and know of a pattern. It may not be a pattern we can scientifically explain, yet or ever, but a pattern is a pattern none the less. And if there is a pattern, knowing why, or how doesn't make it less of a pattern. Would you agree that a definite pattern is not random? Or would you agree that a sporadic pattern is more the term to be used for the lottery. Cause if you need a definite pattern i can show you as many as you want to see. On ANY drawn lottery game. I will say they are sporadic but patterns none the less. They may even be random to you. But that would only be because you haven't looked at them the thousands of times i have to give me the the intuition to know what to look for.

If they cut down their picks to 28 numbers alone that would put their odds at a little better than half the projected 175 million jackpot prize. And if those odds where precise it would cost them around 88 million dollars to play that many. If those 175 million to one odds where in fact true. If is the biggest little word on the planet isn't it? There is no legal gambling venture that has any odds other than 50/50. Same as anything else. You will either win or not win. Plain and simple. You can't have it both ways. Like the quarter flipping wiki link. Stating how it is 50/50 and everything else is 175 million to one? Doesn't work that way. Truth is, those odds are intuition for them, that if they say it's a 175 million to one then everyone playing will have a mindset of it's impossible and knocking faith completely out the door. But it's not impossible is it? It seems there is a winner every other week in PB. I wander if they purchased 175 million tickets each time they won? I doubt it.

Sorry Ronnie, didn't mean to hijack your thread again. Just heard random till my head randomly hurts. But even that is a result of a pattern.

You can't steal second and keep your foot on FIRST!!!

“Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths.
When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

-Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 20, 2013, 1:40 am - IP Logged

Greenfox,

You said, "Cause if you need a definite pattern i can show you as many as you want to see. On ANY drawn lottery game. I will say they are sporadic but patterns none the less. They may even be random to you. But that would only be because you haven't looked at them the thousands of times i have to give me the the intuition to know what to look for."

Based on these observations, I'm hopeful you will be willing to look above at my request of Stack47 for guidance and tell us what your thousands of observations of patterns has led you to conclude regarding the quantitative effect of intuitive faith, or faith based intuition, on your probability of selecting a winning set of numbers.

--Jimmy4164

 Page 247 of 353