United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 31, 2013
Ronnie316,
If they are so well informed, why then do they persist in pursuing what they know to be impossible?
As I see it, there are 2 ways you might stop perceiving superiority in my posts.
I could purposely dumb them down for you, which I'm not comfortable with.
Or, you could raise your IQ. Since you are sure you can increase your odds when playing a game based upon random processes, I imagine you could devise a way to do that as well.
Give it a shot!
--Jimmy4164
If I raise my IQ will it make me more like you jimmy?
upstate NY United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Jan 30, 2013
"You call it negativity, I call it reality."
With MM, 97.5% of all the $1 tickets will win nothing and in about 80% of the drawings, 100% of the tickets will not win the jackpot. That's the reality yet millions of people that know the reality play every drawing. As the jackpots grow, millions more people unrealistically begin playing the game.
If we were having a general discussion and the subject of playing lottery games came up, the consensus would probably be it's unrealistic to believe you can win the MM jackpot. However the discussions on this site are by people who already understand it's unrealistic, but are still willing to take the risk. In most cases the risk is about $300 a year to get over 300 chances of winning a life changing jackpot. I just don't see any reason other than negativity to tell people what they already know or should know.
"If the answer to the question "do some number combinations have better odds?" is "yes", isn't the logical follow-up question "which number combinations have better odds?"
That's a fair question, but it's still based on the fact it's possible. And you're asking that question to people who already know they only have a 1 in 39 chance of giving you the correct answer.
"Ronnie seems to get real mad whenever anyone asks that question, though. Why is that?"
My best guess, it's out of frustration because he already did something statistical improbable and people are demanding he duplicates it.
"It's a shame because if anyone were to come in here looking for useful information on how to get "better odds"
We've already discussed the title of this thread is some what deceptive, but the discussion has evolved into looking for more effective playing strategies. Considering the fact the players already weighed the risk and reward and the playing strategies discussed here don't increase the odds against, where is the useless information?
So you agree with me that this thread is a complete waste of everyone's time?
"That's a fair question, but it's still based on the fact it's possible. And you're asking that question to people who already know they only have a 1 in 39 chance of giving you the correct answer."
Hey, it's not my fault Ronnie thinks he can do "better" than 1 in 39.
"My best guess, it's out of frustration because he already did something statistical improbable and people are demanding he duplicates it."
You must have missed when he matched all 5 numbers in the second draw and subsequently thought -- and acted like -- he was a god. Also note his frequent asssertions that it's so easy a caveman could do it. Actually, his word of choice was "buffoon", but the point's the same. Any grief he gets in this thread, he has brought upon himself. All I'm asking him to do is that which he has already claimed is easy for him.
"We've already discussed the title of this thread is some what deceptive, but the discussion has evolved into looking for more effective playing strategies. Considering the fact the players already weighed the risk and reward and the playing strategies discussed here don't increase the odds against, where is the useless information?"
There has been very little, if any, honest discussion about more effective playing strategies. And the useless part of it is, as you yourself have mentioned several times, we already know how astronomical the odds are. There is nothing you can do to significantly improve your odds of winning a jackpot short of taking Ronnie's simulation into real life and buying over 98,000 tickets per drawing. And even then you've only got a 2.5% chance of hitting that jackpot, if I'm doing my math correctly? That doesn't strike me as a very effective strategy.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 31, 2013
Sorry about that Stack47.
Since when talking about selecting numbers from subsets of 28, 38, or 39 numbers from a universe of 56 or 59 is of little consequence when discussing the advantages of doing so, I guess I glaze over occasionally and confuse you and Ronnie316. I hope I didn't insult anyone.
Looking back, I see that Ronnie likes sets of 38 or 39...
This is funny..... Even after we told little jimmy there has never even been a mention of 38 numbers in this thread, he posts a link and says.... "Ronnie likes sets of 38 or 39"
upstate NY United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Jan 30, 2013
"My best guess, it's out of frustration because he already did something statistical improbable and people are demanding he duplicates it."
None of the people that you are referring to are asking him to duplicate it, just stating that it's not that he had or has better odds, just that he got lucky.
Well, I'll admit to asking him to duplicate it, but only because for a while, he was acting like he had cracked the code and that another 5-number match was only a matter of time. But yes, we all know he merely got lucky, he just won't admit it.
upstate NY United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Jan 30, 2013
And if I define "got lucky" as "number combinations that have better odds" what then boney? Do you presume to have power to determine how I define words and the way they view things like moe does?
Listen, if you're going to redefine the English language, could you at least publish a dictionary so that the rest of us can figure out just what the hell you're talking about?
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by mediabrat on Feb 1, 2013
Listen, if you're going to redefine the English language, could you at least publish a dictionary so that the rest of us can figure out just what the hell you're talking about?
Everything has already been explained in plain English so there should be no need for a dictionary.
upstate NY United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jan 31, 2013
"I would welcome being proven wrong if anyone could do it with something besides words and name calling."
Jimmy4164 wanted to know the odds of having all 5 winning numbers in a subset of 38 of the 56 numbers and why a particular subset would have better odds. I assume he missed the beginning of the thread where that was explained along with an explanation of picking numbers from a list of numbers in the order they had most recently occurred in previous drawings.
Had he and other critics read those parts, they could maybe make a more creditable argument for their positions rather than resulting to name calling.
Clearly you stopped paying attention shortly after that, otherwise you would have seen that he abandoned that particular tactic when he hit a cold streak, and he hasn't revisited it since. (If he has gone back to that, he's only doing it when working out his numbers and hasn't mentioned it here.)
And it's rather ironic that you and Ronnie are complaining about name-calling when he engages in it far more often than anyone else here.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by mediabrat on Feb 1, 2013
Well, I'll admit to asking him to duplicate it, but only because for a while, he was acting like he had cracked the code and that another 5-number match was only a matter of time. But yes, we all know he merely got lucky, he just won't admit it.
Everyone knows that successfully eliminating 20 numbers from the PB pool gives a player BETTER ODDS of hitting a jackpot and a player only needs to win once to be set for life, mediabrat just wont admit it.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by mediabrat on Feb 1, 2013
Clearly you stopped paying attention shortly after that, otherwise you would have seen that he abandoned that particular tactic when he hit a cold streak, and he hasn't revisited it since. (If he has gone back to that, he's only doing it when working out his numbers and hasn't mentioned it here.)
And it's rather ironic that you and Ronnie are complaining about name-calling when he engages in it far more often than anyone else here.
Your the one who is afraid to put up your QP lines for observation against live draws. At least boney had the courage to step forward and compete for 39 draws and after 15 draws Im only up by 1 winning set to zero.
upstate NY United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Feb 1, 2013
Everyone knows that successfully eliminating 20 numbers from the PB pool gives a player BETTER ODDS of hitting a jackpot and a player only needs to win once to be set for life, mediabrat just wont admit it.
And when did you win the jackpot, please? I must have missed the picture of you holding a giant cardboard check from the Arizona Lottery.
upstate NY United States
Member #108,786
March 31, 2011
549 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Feb 1, 2013
Your the one who is afraid to put up your QP lines for observation against live draws. At least boney had the courage to step forward and compete for 39 draws and after 15 draws Im only up by 1 winning set to zero.
I'm not putting anything up because, unlike you, I have nothing to prove. And didn't Boney match four numbers to your two in the last draw? By your rules, he already got "better odds" than you. And you said he couldn't do it...