Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 22, 2017, 9:05 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 300 of 353
4.820
PrintE-mailLink
Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 12, 2013, 1:05 pm - IP Logged

Boney............. While you were talking in circles you stated the concept perfectly.........

, beat the odds implies doing better than the stated odds through skill.

And I'm not implying it, I'm saying it. Me and all the other 5000 LP members who are on line every day making predictions using skills that you don't have, or even have the ability to comprehend.

Why should I, or anyone else, listen to you?

 

One day you calim that it's skill, the next you claim to know it's not.  You're just a loudmouth who wants to be right no matter what, and have it both ways.  I have the ability to comprehend what you're talking about - but it's just nonsense to think you can do it.  If you truly believe you can, fine, I'm saying that you are wrong.  Hate on me all you want.

 

I don't talk in circles - I stick to my points if they're right, and correct them when I'm found to be wrong.  You can call being consistent talking in circles, but it isn't, just like you can call the lottery skill, which it isn't.


    United States
    Member #124493
    March 14, 2012
    7023 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 12, 2013, 1:56 pm - IP Logged

    This atmosphere is fine with me,    LottoBoner

         Lately,  Trend-wise,   Digit Zero, has taken  FIRE, the last few draws.

             I also think Digit  1  will be hanging around,     and...

                Digit 7  acts kinda funny,  but,  it's shown some signs of life lately. 

          Here are  Three, from my 'No Show"  list, for tonight 

                                    3,    9,   0      ( last digits )           let's see if one of those shows tonight.

    Being that we are chasing trends, I dont know if it would be wise to go with "No Shows"

    as the trend for a "no show" is to not show.

    I am posting a chart here.  For those of you who dont know, SergeM is the programmer of all my MatrixWalks, and the following is portion of the chart that I rarely post.  So the chart is courtesy of him.

    Anyway.  This is a count of Last 10, Last 25 Last 50 of Last digits.  The obvious "Hot Trend, is to have two Last digit ones.

    Every "2" on this chart (colored yellow) represents a LDS, last digit same.  The 1's have been hot.  The 0's could be waking, and the 9's are dead in the water. And the 3's are dead in the water.  The dead numbers will wake up.  But right away?  Probably not.  There will be delay, and calculating or becoming aware of this delay is key to catching them. So my personal opinion is to leave the dead fish dead in the water for the time being.

    I would stick with 1.  And if i was gonna use LottoLaughs system, i would go 1 -2.  But the main thing first is for two numbers with Last digit one.  Since #1 is a skip of 2, that would be one of my favorites for tonite.

    2/12/2013

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    25

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1

    24

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    23

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    2

    0

    22

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1

    21

    0

    2

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    20

    0

    0

    1

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    19

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    18

    0

    1

    1

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    17

    0

    2

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    16

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    15

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    14

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    13

    2

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    12

    0

    2

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    11

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    10

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    9

    1

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    8

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    7

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    1

    6

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    5

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    4

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    1

    0

    3

    2

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1

    2/12/2013

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    L10

    7

    8

    7

    1

    4

    3

    6

    4

    5

    5

    L25

    9

    20

    18

    12

    14

    8

    11

    8

    14

    11

    L50

    9

    21

    20

    15

    18

    13

    17

    15

    22

    20

     Last Digits ones here has been and is in a LFF.  It is Hot to Trot.  The most recent draws are at the bottom, the farther draws at the top, from 1 to 25 last draws.  So a wheel would have to have almost all the Last digit ones.  I would use a matrix walk, and or skip to filter my Last Digit one selections.

    Off the top,

    1  skip 2

    11 skip 4

    21  skip 9

    31  skip 4

    41 skip 2

    51 skip 17

    Professionally I would play 1  11  31 41  51 in a wheel hoping to score two.

    Then one could ask what Last digits come out the most with the Last digit one?  Maybe the above chart can elucidate that .

    Notice in the Last 25 draws, there has been 4 occasions where 4 of the 5 numbers were represented by only TWO LAST DIGITS.  This phenomenon of TWO LAST Digits can express also in a LFF, and I would gamble to say we are in a LFF.  This last occurred two draws ago.

    The problem is matching the other Last Digit probables with the 1's.

    I hope this helps some people.

    Good Luck!

    P.S. One of the ways I have found success is to find different variables with overlapping flag formations.  Not a task for the feint of heart!

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7344 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 12, 2013, 2:00 pm - IP Logged

      "If you believe gambling is all about gaining an edge and looking for an odds advantage in your favor, the odds of that happening are about the same as a $1 QP winning MM."

       

      Not true at all.  It's actually relatively easy to gain an edge over a gamble.  Not in most casino games, but relative to your odds of being up in the lottery over any extended amount of play (or even with very little play.)

       

      "Nope, it's obvious lottery players believe their ticket has the same chance of winning as another ticket and they are correct."

       

      You'd think that'd be obvious.  It doesn't appear to be appear to be obvious to everyone.

       

      "I don't want to sound rude, but you're ignoring the "1" behind the larger number and that is the possibility of winning a jackpot. And when that "1" is the ticket the player purchased, they BEAT the odds in any type of real common sense. Ronnie isn't trying to beat the odds by eliminating some of the extra numbers, but is betting he won't eliminate the "1" combination with the five winning numbers.

      Playing 5 numbers straight up in Roulette doesn't magically eliminate the other 33 numbers, but I've never seen one Roulette wheel that had more than "1" winning number."

       

      You don't sound rude, and I'm not ignoring it, I'm multiplying the probability of the event by it's expected result in order to get the Expected Value.  I realize that MOST gamblers aren't actively seeking oppurtunities for that EV to be larger than 1.00 (100%) but I am.  It's totally fine to gamble with a negative expectation, especially because you won't find a game with potential for huge payouts and a positive expectation.

       

      I understand that you're using the term "beat the odds" figuratively.  But I'd argue that it's you guys, not me, who are ignoring the "to 1."  I'm counting both the large number and the "to 1" to get an average value, and I account for the variance.  Like I've said many times, it's about players preferences, even if they don't understand the math behind their preferences.  My preference is to have as high EV and low STD DEV as possible.  You rarely find low STD DEV games, so I focus on finding +EV games, and managing the risk I take.  Basically the same concepts that are used when trading stocks.  In English that means I have an edge and as little "swinginess" as possible.

       

      Most people, and you've described this, prefer to have the potential for huge payouts.  Most players don't have much of a concept of EV, as indicated by your insisting that other players at a blackjack table affect your play.  They may affect the order of the cards, but since they don't affect the EV (probabilities*payouts) a player shouldn't actually care what the other players do.  And the math oriented players don't.

      "I understand that you're using the term "beat the odds" figuratively."

      The odds in MM are calculated by comparing the number of possible outcomes to "1" winning outcome. The odds of any one of the 56 numbers are calculated differently because there are "5" winning outcomes. We know it's possible to have the "5" winning outcomes in a group of 28 numbers so we calculate those odds the same way we calculated the overall odds by comparing the number of possible outcomes to "1". It doesn't change the fact there is only "1" possible outcome, it just proves what we should know; by default not all possible outcomes are in play. And it's possible to eliminate a large percentage of them and still retain the "1" winning outcome.

      After 300 pages of discussion the pros and cons of the possibilities, LB and rightfully so, wants to discuss the possibilities of successfully eliminating the useless combos.

      "My preference is to have as high EV and low STD DEV as possible."

      Then MM is obviously not your game, but that slight edge of having better than a 50% probability you're looking for can be found in MM by using 33 of the 56 numbers. When the first number is drawn there is a 59% probability it will be one of the 33 numbers. When the second is drawn, a 58% probability it will be one of the 32 numbers and then 57%, 56.6%, and a 55.8% probability on the fifth number.

      The edge is not the same as card counting playing Blackjack, but the same type of edge counters are looking for.

      Ronnie doesn't have to calculate the STD DEV of a group of 28 numbers from probability because he knows many 28 number groups will match five numbers in five consecutive drawings. If you're saying it's very difficult to find, I agree but it's not impossible.


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:22 pm - IP Logged

        Why should I, or anyone else, listen to you?

         

        One day you calim that it's skill, the next you claim to know it's not.  You're just a loudmouth who wants to be right no matter what, and have it both ways.  I have the ability to comprehend what you're talking about - but it's just nonsense to think you can do it.  If you truly believe you can, fine, I'm saying that you are wrong.  Hate on me all you want.

         

        I don't talk in circles - I stick to my points if they're right, and correct them when I'm found to be wrong.  You can call being consistent talking in circles, but it isn't, just like you can call the lottery skill, which it isn't.

        Boney............. While you were talking in circles you stated the concept perfectly.........

        , beat the odds implies doing better than the stated odds through skill.

        And I'm not implying it, I'm saying it. Me and all the other 5000 LP members who are on line every day making predictions using skills that you don't have, or even have the ability to comprehend.

        How did my post express "hate" in even a remote way boney?


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:22 pm - IP Logged

          What?


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:25 pm - IP Logged

            Btw boney, just to let you know. Listening to me is optional. you keep posting as if you are under some sort of obligation, or some how required to do so. Are you feeling ok? Getting your meds on time?


              United States
              Member #111442
              May 25, 2011
              6323 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:29 pm - IP Logged

              I just took my meds, feeling great now!  Dance


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:31 pm - IP Logged

                I just took my meds, feeling great now!  Dance

                Glad to hear, my friend. As always you are a beacon of light in a dark place.Yes Nod


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:37 pm - IP Logged

                  I think I resent the fact that boney thinks I "hate" him.


                    United States
                    Member #111442
                    May 25, 2011
                    6323 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:38 pm - IP Logged

                    Glad to hear, my friend. As always you are a beacon of light in a dark place.Yes Nod

                    Are you implying I'm in a dark place?  Let It All Out


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:40 pm - IP Logged

                      Yes, lurking about in places you shouldn't.

                      Lurking

                        riscknight's avatar - riscknight
                        Athens
                        Greece
                        Member #133234
                        September 24, 2012
                        193 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:44 pm - IP Logged

                        Is there any chance for some of you to "work together" instead of "debating?". Perhaps joining forces might change this debate to your favor...

                        6/49 dis(assembly)


                          United States
                          Member #111442
                          May 25, 2011
                          6323 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:49 pm - IP Logged

                          Lurking was a skill I learned early on from LW2.

                          I learned to go places I didn't belong from the Indiana Kid.

                          Placing all my faith in QP's is a quantum leap I learned from you.  Cheers


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 12, 2013, 3:59 pm - IP Logged

                            Boney526,

                            I agree. There really isn't a more delicate way to put it.

                            People like Stack47 are either true believers or are paid for their efforts here. If they truly are believers, they either experienced short term winnings way out in the right hand tail of an ROI distribution, or know someone well who did. Retired casino employees often start to believe in systems as a result of observing customers win with [E.G.] roulette systems, particularly the kind discussed above.

                            Even when presented with the skewed distribution of randomly generated ROIs that I put up recently, Stack47's thinking causes him to proclaim that there are ways to increase your chances of being in the right hand tail. Unhappy

                            It would be encouraging if believers would stop asking us when we are going to contribute something "constructive." If they stopped, perhaps we could assume they finally get the message that if constructive is defined as devising ways to "increase odds of winning," there are none.

                            All that can be hoped for is that a few curious readers here discover the wisdom of probability theory, which had its beginnings in the 1600's. Mathematicians at the University of Texas have a concise summary of these beginnings with Links to other interesting sites as well:

                            http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/mleung/probabilityandstatistics/beg.html 

                            P.S. It really would be interesting to read a substantive explanation of just what people here believe the physical causative factors are behind a "streak" in, say, roulette. Smile

                            --Jimmy4164

                            There were 6-8 of us here working together peacefully til around page 222 when Jimmy showed up and recruited a couple of others to assist in disrupting the thread. (We call them the 3 Stooges) 

                            Notice in the post above from page 222 how he talks to boney about members here (and singles out Stack specifically) and at the end makes a statement that leaves a question to be answered, but no question mark.


                              United States
                              Member #124493
                              March 14, 2012
                              7023 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 12, 2013, 4:02 pm - IP Logged

                              Is there any chance for some of you to "work together" instead of "debating?". Perhaps joining forces might change this debate to your favor...

                              I Agree!

                              However you cant change the fact that some posters are just toxic.

                                 
                                Page 300 of 353