Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,295 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Jan 21, 2013
"Where was our flaw when you proved some of your mythical players benefited from the same standard deviation that exist in random drawings that we were looking for?"
Your flaw, specifically Ronnies, was in using words like undeniable in referencing better odds.
I don't feel I need to respond to that second part. Obviously Jimmy can READ what happened when he was away from his computer at a later time. I feel like calling you a dumby for even suggesting that.
So Jimmy is a distraction because..... he doesn't agree with you? First of all.... Ronnie has continuously made assertions that his claims are undeniable and factual...... in essence if he didn't say that he was guaranteed a big win, he implies that he is better at it. He showed that (and no sane person ever disagreed with this part, dispite the words he puts in MY mouth) it is possible to win. Well, whatever, it's possible for ANY player to win. If it wasn't, why would anyone play?
I guess it's distracting to you not be patted on the back and told that everything you do is productive, and will work. That's not logical. If you were in math class in 2nd grade learning multiplication tables, and you said 5 times 5 was 30, I guess the teacher distracted you by showing you that it was actually 25, bro.
And Jimmy's 5/2 IS comparable to any other game. The actual numbers aren't the same and nobody would play it, but if your theory about reducing IS correct, it should hold up regardless of the actual numbers drawn. That's the nature of reality. 1+1=2, 1+2=3 and following that logic, 2+2=4. That logic doesn't change as the numbers do.
If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool. It's simply easier to see if you are right or wrong with a smaller field of numbers. ANY serious researcher, worker or layperson using math to solve a problem knows that. For a more realistic example, I was once trying to work out the math for a roulette side bet I was inventing out of boredom, and b/c I was suprised it hadn't been thought of yet. I wanted to see if my math was sound, and I KNEW FOR A FACT the odds of a certain event. So I used my formula, and inputed the numbers and viola, the odds I knew to be true showed up. Therefore, I could extrapolate the odds of different bets with different probabilities using the same logic (in this case, the same equation where the only the variables change.)
"Your flaw, specifically Ronnies, was in using words like undeniable in referencing better odds."
Jimmy said "Here is the most important part of this posting! If Old Uncle Craig doesn't know anything about Means and Standard Deviations, or doesn't "Believe" they apply to flying lottery ping pong balls," and asked you "Since I've taken the time to write this program and present the results, I hope I can count on you to help explain it."
Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results.
"Obviously Jimmy can READ what happened when he was away from his computer at a later time."
But Jimmy said "During the hours I'm gone from here, I see nothing but drivel in this thread." and had he said "I saw", I obviously would have responded differently. He brought up flaws in logic and then tells us what he sees when he is not at is computer.
"So Jimmy is a distraction because..... he doesn't agree with you?"
Now you're being the same type of distraction by inventing things that were never said. You invented an excuse by saying you know what Jimmy really meant, as if that changes what he really said or why I responded.
"Ronnie has continuously made assertions that his claims are undeniable and factual."
Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions. Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created.
"The actual numbers aren't the same and nobody would play it, but if your theory about reducing IS correct, it should hold up regardless of the actual numbers drawn."
I'm talking about the possibility of reducing 3,819,816 possible outcomes by 97.4% without eliminating the one chance of matching five numbers and it looks like you're suggesting I can reduce 10 possible outcomes (in a game "nobody would play") by 97.4% to make a comparison. Jimmy wants me to compare the five four numbers groups in his goofy game where three of those groups will always match the two winning numbers and every group will always match half of the winning numbers to the groups of 28 numbers with only 2.6% of the possible outcomes that get five consecutive five number matches.
If you think you can show a comparison, go for it because I'm not interested.
"If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."
It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?
"The fact that only 25 numbers max can be drawn in 5 draws (just counting white balls) is true."
I used that as an example when Ronnie asked about the possibilities of a group of 28 getting more than 1 five number match in 39 drawings. Because of an abnormal number of repeats, I found a group of 28 numbers with eight consecutive matches. I never addressed the difficultly of actually finding a way to isolate groups of 28 numbers that would get five matches in 39 drawings because I thought it was obvious.
Jimmy is assuming because I'm saying it's fact that groups of 28 do get five consecutive matches, I'm marketing a a system based on the possibilities and afraid I'll sell it to his new pen pal. LMAO!
Jimmy said "Here is the most important part of this posting! If Old Uncle Craig doesn't know anything about Means and Standard Deviations, or doesn't "Believe" they apply to flying lottery ping pong balls," and asked you "Since I've taken the time to write this program and present the results, I hope I can count on you to help explain it."
Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results.
"Obviously Jimmy can READ what happened when he was away from his computer at a later time."
But Jimmy said "During the hours I'm gone from here, I see nothing but drivel in this thread." and had he said "I saw", I obviously would have responded differently. He brought up flaws in logic and then tells us what he sees when he is not at is computer.
"So Jimmy is a distraction because..... he doesn't agree with you?"
Now you're being the same type of distraction by inventing things that were never said. You invented an excuse by saying you know what Jimmy really meant, as if that changes what he really said or why I responded.
"Ronnie has continuously made assertions that his claims are undeniable and factual."
Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions. Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created.
"The actual numbers aren't the same and nobody would play it, but if your theory about reducing IS correct, it should hold up regardless of the actual numbers drawn."
I'm talking about the possibility of reducing 3,819,816 possible outcomes by 97.4% without eliminating the one chance of matching five numbers and it looks like you're suggesting I can reduce 10 possible outcomes (in a game "nobody would play") by 97.4% to make a comparison. Jimmy wants me to compare the five four numbers groups in his goofy game where three of those groups will always match the two winning numbers and every group will always match half of the winning numbers to the groups of 28 numbers with only 2.6% of the possible outcomes that get five consecutive five number matches.
If you think you can show a comparison, go for it because I'm not interested.
"If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."
It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?
"The fact that only 25 numbers max can be drawn in 5 draws (just counting white balls) is true."
I used that as an example when Ronnie asked about the possibilities of a group of 28 getting more than 1 five number match in 39 drawings. Because of an abnormal number of repeats, I found a group of 28 numbers with eight consecutive matches. I never addressed the difficultly of actually finding a way to isolate groups of 28 numbers that would get five matches in 39 drawings because I thought it was obvious.
Jimmy is assuming because I'm saying it's fact that groups of 28 do get five consecutive matches, I'm marketing a a system based on the possibilities and afraid I'll sell it to his new pen pal. LMAO!
Stack47,
I'm sorry I confused you with my poor choice of words describing the drivel in this thread in the hours between my posts. It's now been about 24 hours, plenty of time for you and Ronnie to advance your research to get BETTER ODDS than the rest of us in Lotto. Did you make any progress? Based on your quoted post here, I would guess the answer is no.
In your post you have revealed, in excruciating detail, the depth of your innumeracy and your inability to understand legitimate mathematical analogies. This does not mean you are a bad or unworthy person, but it does call into question your judgement. Most people who would be confused and unable to see the logical connection between a (5,2) Lotto and a (56,5) Lotto, would simply remain silent.
For a few days I thought maybe you really knew the probabilities here and had some ulterior motive to suppress the result. But no, in your post above, it's pretty clear, you don't know what end is up. I don't enjoy deriding someone for not understanding something, but when they are as mean spirited as you have been in this thread, I don't feel guilty.
Here's a simple explanation of the value of choosing subsets of Lotto pools from which to select numbers compared to merely making random selections from the entire field. I hope this will be an awakening for you.
New Jersey United States
Member #99,028
October 18, 2010
1,439 Posts
Offline
I'm going to reply to a couple of the things you said here... and then hopefully I'll just be done. I can't believe the stuff you said in this post.
"Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results."
Because you do not USE standard deviation, it simply occurs. By nature, you don't have control of it.
"Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions. Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created."
Except he doesn't actually choose the coniditions which occur during the drawing, which is the random element in the game. He chooses his own numbers, and the lottery randomly selects numbers using a pool that the lottery selects. These are the same conditions I use, since they are the actual, factual conditions that we play these games in.
""If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."
It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?"
What you said here in response to my quote was just non sense. I mean it. Like you responded to a point I never made. My point was that if your idea of eliminating numbers to gain better odds was possible, it would hold up in a simplified version of the lottery too, similar to what Jimmy posted.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Jan 22, 2013
I'm going to reply to a couple of the things you said here... and then hopefully I'll just be done. I can't believe the stuff you said in this post.
"Please explain since you know there will be standard deviation, why it's not possible to use it to get better results."
Because you do not USE standard deviation, it simply occurs. By nature, you don't have control of it.
"Because Ronnie's claims are always based on his conditions. Most of your arguments are based on arbitrarily changing Ronnie's conditions and arguing for the conditions you created."
Except he doesn't actually choose the coniditions which occur during the drawing, which is the random element in the game. He chooses his own numbers, and the lottery randomly selects numbers using a pool that the lottery selects. These are the same conditions I use, since they are the actual, factual conditions that we play these games in.
""If your theories had ANY credibility they would hold up on games regardless of the amount of numbers in a lottery pool."
It's either possible that a group of 25 numbers can get five five number matches in five consecutive drawings or it's impossible. Which is it?"
What you said here in response to my quote was just non sense. I mean it. Like you responded to a point I never made. My point was that if your idea of eliminating numbers to gain better odds was possible, it would hold up in a simplified version of the lottery too, similar to what Jimmy posted.
Once again boney, you are ignoring the obvious. People have been "beating the odds" and doing things they are told "cant be done" for as long as they have been on the earth.
Human beings have intangible powers that cant be calculated, and indisputably can get BETTER ODDS.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
We dont call boney "bone headed" for nothing........
He ignores the fact that people can create, imagine, and yes even predict. Winning the lottery by intelligent design is not that hard to do and 2 people here have already proved it. Read it and weep boney. lol. lol.