Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 9:19 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 33 of 353
mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 16, 2012, 2:06 am - IP Logged

Is the verdict in yet or is the jury still trying to decide if some combinations have better odds of winning?

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 16, 2012, 9:58 am - IP Logged

Is the verdict in yet or is the jury still trying to decide if some combinations have better odds of winning?

I think it is without doubt that the (God given) creative ability of the human spirit can easily overcome ANY odds and can also do much much better than the stated lottery odds.

3 people out of 7 have already hit 5+0 and we have only been playing for a total of 10 draws.

What a surprise, Stack discovered a group of 28 numbers that hit 8 TIMES IN A ROW.

If a person captured just a few of those wins in a row, it would blow away the odds as only "One in 39" is needed to match stated lottery odds, and anything better than "One in 39" proves SOME NUMBER COMBINATIONS HAVE BETTER ODDS.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 16, 2012, 6:22 pm - IP Logged

The big winner is topnail with 4+0.

Great work topnail, your numbers are getting close again.

I used a strategy playing Ohio's Rolling Cash 5 (5/39) to find a group of 14 numbers that consistently matched two or three numbers, matched four numbers about every 10 drawings and some five number matches. My strategy was to place the 39 numbers in a specific order in 39 columns that changed every drawing and determined the best 14 columns to play. Even though I had lots of two and three number matches and enough four number matches to play at a small profit, I wasn't matching all five numbers and in retrospect had no chance of winning a jackpot. The theory was if the chart could produce lots of two, three, and four number matches, it should produce some five number matches.

The betting strategy of \$20 a drawing was to have 3 four number matches in 45 drawings so the two and three number matches would be the profit and keep me in the game until hopefully match all five and win the jackpot. Matching two numbers paid \$1, three paid \$10, and four paid \$300 and I was lucky enough to match all four numbers on the same line 4 times playing an abbreviated 3 if 4 of 14 number wheel. The results were I averaged collecting \$31 for every \$20 I bet or about a 50% profit. Winning about only \$500 trying to win at least \$100,000 isn't exactly what I had in mind.

Using 20 numbers would have given me better chances of matching all five numbers, but the daily cost of play was considerably higher even using abbreviated wheels so that wasn't an option.

Back to the topic, there were 3 people matching all five numbers and lots of four number matches in only 9 drawings which is way about average so it's starting to look like your idea has lots of potential.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 16, 2012, 7:22 pm - IP Logged

Thanks Stack, it is above average and I think everyone is on the right track.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 17, 2012, 12:52 pm - IP Logged

I used a strategy playing Ohio's Rolling Cash 5 (5/39) to find a group of 14 numbers that consistently matched two or three numbers, matched four numbers about every 10 drawings and some five number matches. My strategy was to place the 39 numbers in a specific order in 39 columns that changed every drawing and determined the best 14 columns to play. Even though I had lots of two and three number matches and enough four number matches to play at a small profit, I wasn't matching all five numbers and in retrospect had no chance of winning a jackpot. The theory was if the chart could produce lots of two, three, and four number matches, it should produce some five number matches.

The betting strategy of \$20 a drawing was to have 3 four number matches in 45 drawings so the two and three number matches would be the profit and keep me in the game until hopefully match all five and win the jackpot. Matching two numbers paid \$1, three paid \$10, and four paid \$300 and I was lucky enough to match all four numbers on the same line 4 times playing an abbreviated 3 if 4 of 14 number wheel. The results were I averaged collecting \$31 for every \$20 I bet or about a 50% profit. Winning about only \$500 trying to win at least \$100,000 isn't exactly what I had in mind.

Using 20 numbers would have given me better chances of matching all five numbers, but the daily cost of play was considerably higher even using abbreviated wheels so that wasn't an option.

Back to the topic, there were 3 people matching all five numbers and lots of four number matches in only 9 drawings which is way about average so it's starting to look like your idea has lots of potential.

The results were I averaged collecting \$31 for every \$20 I bet or about a 50% profit. Winning about only \$500 trying to win at least \$100,000 isn't exactly what I had in mind.

I would think a consistent 50% profit would be acceptable to any lottery player regardless of what he had in mind.  I doubt if anyone else has gotten those kinds of results in spite the fact that the odds of winning something are 1:10

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

United States
Member #111442
May 25, 2011
6323 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 17, 2012, 12:56 pm - IP Logged

The results were I averaged collecting \$31 for every \$20 I bet or about a 50% profit. Winning about only \$500 trying to win at least \$100,000 isn't exactly what I had in mind.

I would think a consistent 50% profit would be acceptable to any lottery player regardless of what he had in mind.  I doubt if anyone else has gotten those kinds of results in spite the fact that the odds of winning something are 1:10

I'll take those "small winnings" every day of the week. Sign me up!

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 17, 2012, 2:01 pm - IP Logged

I'll take those "small winnings" every day of the week. Sign me up!

Yeah, if he could do that on a consistent basis AND do it in live drawings it would be quite an achievement. Worthy of writing home about I would think.

Could we do some parlay wagering on that system??

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 17, 2012, 8:38 pm - IP Logged

I'll take those "small winnings" every day of the week. Sign me up!

If Stack has developed such a strategy, he's probably not willing to explain it to anyone else, but I would like to observe it working.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 17, 2012, 11:04 pm - IP Logged

The results were I averaged collecting \$31 for every \$20 I bet or about a 50% profit. Winning about only \$500 trying to win at least \$100,000 isn't exactly what I had in mind.

I would think a consistent 50% profit would be acceptable to any lottery player regardless of what he had in mind.  I doubt if anyone else has gotten those kinds of results in spite the fact that the odds of winning something are 1:10

The reason I had the 50% profit was because the wheel gave me a much better return than the guarantee. I've used abbreviated wheels long enough to know that I can't expect to match four numbers using a 3 if 4 wheel on the same line every time 4 of the 14 numbers are drawn. The difference between having a 4 number match four times and the wheel's guarantee of four 3 number matches was \$1160.

A 50% profit is the equivalent of someone playing MM at \$10 a drawing and winning \$520 for the entire year or a \$10 a day pick-3 player winning \$1825. The MM winnings would probably come from several 3 + 1 or 4 + 0 matches with odds against at about 14,000 to 1 or several pick-3 straight wins at 1000 to 1. None of those wins are close to life changing.

I don't think average lottery players would be satisfied getting a 2/3 return on their money; especially when I was playing to get a 1000 to 1 return.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 17, 2012, 11:23 pm - IP Logged

The reason I had the 50% profit was because the wheel gave me a much better return than the guarantee. I've used abbreviated wheels long enough to know that I can't expect to match four numbers using a 3 if 4 wheel on the same line every time 4 of the 14 numbers are drawn. The difference between having a 4 number match four times and the wheel's guarantee of four 3 number matches was \$1160.

A 50% profit is the equivalent of someone playing MM at \$10 a drawing and winning \$520 for the entire year or a \$10 a day pick-3 player winning \$1825. The MM winnings would probably come from several 3 + 1 or 4 + 0 matches with odds against at about 14,000 to 1 or several pick-3 straight wins at 1000 to 1. None of those wins are close to life changing.

I don't think average lottery players would be satisfied getting a 2/3 return on their money; especially when I was playing to get a 1000 to 1 return.

No disrespect Stack, but no one makes a consistent profit playing the lottery. It is not that type of game. I do think we can get "better" odds, but it still requires playing the right numbers at the right time to come out ahead of the game.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 18, 2012, 12:52 am - IP Logged

If Stack has developed such a strategy, he's probably not willing to explain it to anyone else, but I would like to observe it working.

Good point RJ, with a system that works that well it would be wise NOT to share it.

I'm also open to hearing any success Stack is having and I hope he can put his system into live action and bring home some big cash.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 18, 2012, 11:19 am - IP Logged

Ronnie hits 5+0 playing all odd numbers for 10 draws.

topnail scores 4+0. Excellent work. I had a feeling your getting hot.

I committed to playing all odd numbers for 10 draws and they hit on draw #9.

That's two, 5+0 hits in 11 draws for me. I'm thinking others here will do the same or better.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 18, 2012, 12:53 pm - IP Logged

If Stack has developed such a strategy, he's probably not willing to explain it to anyone else, but I would like to observe it working.

The chart I used was pretty simple and it was just a different way to analysis the past drawings. I place all 39 numbers in the order drawn starting with the most recently drawn number, the first 20 numbers were the numbers usually drawn in the past five or six drawings, and continued to the last number that was the longest out. The order changed after every drawing because the drawn numbers would become the first five numbers.

I color highlighted each of the drawn numbers within the chart and after about 40 drawings I noticed patterns where more of the drawn numbers were coming from certain areas of the chart. After charting for 80 drawings, I tested the best 14 columns and found they matched two numbers almost every drawing, matched three numbers about 80%, four numbers about 10% and enough five number matches to have a \$100,000 plus jackpot winning potential.

Playing a full wheel at \$2002 was out of the question because there were six drawings a week so I decided to try a 3 if 4 abbreviated wheel at \$20 a drawing for two weeks. The betting strategy was based on getting a four number match once out of every 15 drawings, but I was assuming 5 of the 14 numbers would match the drawn numbers to get a four number because a 3 if 4 wheel doesn't guarantee getting a four number match by matching four of the numbers.

The majority of my profits came from the first 4 weeks of play and had enough three number matches in the next two weeks to continue playing for the seventh week. In that week I only had 1 three number match and only matched two numbers in three other drawings so I decided to keep my small profit and quit. In retrospect, my betting strategy was sound because I did get enough matches to not only cover the cost of play but to make a small profit, but since I never matched all five numbers, I had no chance of winning the jackpot.

I think you're overestimating the value of a 50% profit because an even money win betting on Black on a roulette wheel gets a 100% profit.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19826 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 18, 2012, 1:34 pm - IP Logged

The chart I used was pretty simple and it was just a different way to analysis the past drawings. I place all 39 numbers in the order drawn starting with the most recently drawn number, the first 20 numbers were the numbers usually drawn in the past five or six drawings, and continued to the last number that was the longest out. The order changed after every drawing because the drawn numbers would become the first five numbers.

I color highlighted each of the drawn numbers within the chart and after about 40 drawings I noticed patterns where more of the drawn numbers were coming from certain areas of the chart. After charting for 80 drawings, I tested the best 14 columns and found they matched two numbers almost every drawing, matched three numbers about 80%, four numbers about 10% and enough five number matches to have a \$100,000 plus jackpot winning potential.

Playing a full wheel at \$2002 was out of the question because there were six drawings a week so I decided to try a 3 if 4 abbreviated wheel at \$20 a drawing for two weeks. The betting strategy was based on getting a four number match once out of every 15 drawings, but I was assuming 5 of the 14 numbers would match the drawn numbers to get a four number because a 3 if 4 wheel doesn't guarantee getting a four number match by matching four of the numbers.

The majority of my profits came from the first 4 weeks of play and had enough three number matches in the next two weeks to continue playing for the seventh week. In that week I only had 1 three number match and only matched two numbers in three other drawings so I decided to keep my small profit and quit. In retrospect, my betting strategy was sound because I did get enough matches to not only cover the cost of play but to make a small profit, but since I never matched all five numbers, I had no chance of winning the jackpot.

I think you're overestimating the value of a 50% profit because an even money win betting on Black on a roulette wheel gets a 100% profit.

I think you're overestimating the value of a 50% profit

I'm overestimating something because I keep thinking with *65620 ways to break even of better without winning the jackpot, I should be able to come up with a winning strategy.

* 170 ways to match four for \$300
5610 ways to match three for \$10
59840 ways to match two for \$1 and break even.

* you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket *

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7310 Posts
Offline
 Posted: July 18, 2012, 2:37 pm - IP Logged

No disrespect Stack, but no one makes a consistent profit playing the lottery. It is not that type of game. I do think we can get "better" odds, but it still requires playing the right numbers at the right time to come out ahead of the game.

It was RJ that mentioned "consistent profit"; I only mentioned consistently matching two or three numbers with enough four number matches to show a small profit. At best I only proved it's possible to consistently get four number matches on one pay line playing a 3 if 4 abbreviated wheel. I know the odds so I know it was probable the next four times I matched four numbers using the same wheel, it was possible to not get any four number matches on a pay line.

I quit that playing strategy because my object was to win the \$100,000 plus jackpot and that can't be done by only matching four numbers. It's possible I could have played for an entire year off the winnings with little or no profit or maintained the 50% average and won \$1 for every \$2 I bet. While winning \$3120 a year by betting \$20 a day six days a week might sound like a good idea on paper, it means updating the chart every day, getting the 14 numbers to play, putting them into the wheel, accurately filling out four playslips, and taking them to a lottery retailer. After seven weeks, I decide it wasn't worth the time and I'm not tauting it as a winning system.

"no one makes a consistent profit playing the lottery"

A couple of weeks ago I was looking for something on the KY Lottery website and stumbled into the "Winners" section where they show players holding over sized checks. In the Pick-3 section one player's picture was shown 12 times winning various amounts from \$1400 to \$8000 in less than two years of play (20 months). The guy had winnings of \$31,950 playing the Pick-3. His first three wins of \$4000, \$4000, and \$3500 were in one week and his fourth was for \$8000 was a few months later. His next 8 wins were from January 2012 and from the amounts he won, it looks like he was playing \$2 to \$2.50 straight/box tickets for those wins.

I don't know how much he bet a drawing or why he decided to cash his tickets at the lottery headquarters (maybe he likes having his picture taken) so while it doesn't prove he consistently shows a profit, it does shows consistency in winning. He could show just a 50% profit with an average bet of \$14 every Midday and Evening drawing.

http://www.kylottery.com/apps/winners/pick3/pick3.html

 Page 33 of 353