United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: July 18, 2012, 4:01 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on July 18, 2012

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.

Excellent post Stack, also thought your reply to RJ was excellent. You make a great case for consistently playing your numbers. Even though it proved to be more effort than you wanted to continue making you did have a chance at hitting the $100k all the time you were playing.

Which also helps my point that the timing needs to be right when we make a play at a big win. I have won more than my share of slot jackpots and it always happens in the first 5 minutes.

Whatever game I play, if I don't achieve my objective in a limited amount of time I move on.

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.

If you're taking about investing $65,620 a year and making a guaranteed $32,810 profit, you're on to something, but I'm talking about something where the only guarantee is you'll get to play at a greatly reduced cost or get lucky for a short period of time and make a tiny profit. At $20 a drawing, a player would need a four number match every 15 drawings just to show a tiny profit. I got lucky and matched four numbers 4 times in 42 drawings, but that's still only a 42% profit; the rest came from the two and three number matches.

My average daily winnings were about $11.75, but that's including the $1200 I won by matching four numbers in only 4 of the drawings. Out of 42 drawings, I lost money in at least 36 drawings and had a few where I didn't match even two numbers. I'm talking about actual play when the previous day's winnings were usually less then the cost of the playslips I handed the clerk and I had to make up the difference or $16 to $20 when I only matched two numbers or one or zero.

I wasn't projecting a 50% or any profit playing forever or even for 6 months or a year; I'm not suggesting it's a winning system at least by my betting strategy. You won't find very many system makers that will mention the downside or explain why they quit using it.

"170 ways to match four for $300"

A full 14 number wheel has 2002 combos and 10 ways to match any four numbers. The overall odds are irreverent because a 14 number wheel can't match four numbers when less than four of the numbers are drawn. There are odds against matching the four numbers on the same line when four of the numbers are drawn.

"5610 ways to match three for $10"

There are 180 ways to match three numbers in a full 14 number wheel by matching any 4 of the numbers. Since the abbreviated wheel is guaranteed to match one of them, there are no odds against. There are only 55 ways to match any three numbers so there are odds against getting a three number match by using that abbreviated wheel when only three of the numbers are drawn.

Any wheel is only as good as the numbers you use. If you can't match all five numbers, you can't win the jackpot or match four by only matching three numbers. And there is no guarantee winning the jackpot by matching all five numbers by playing any wheel that's less than a full combo wheel.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20147 Posts Offline

Posted: July 18, 2012, 4:38 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on July 18, 2012

If you're taking about investing $65,620 a year and making a guaranteed $32,810 profit, you're on to something, but I'm talking about something where the only guarantee is you'll get to play at a greatly reduced cost or get lucky for a short period of time and make a tiny profit. At $20 a drawing, a player would need a four number match every 15 drawings just to show a tiny profit. I got lucky and matched four numbers 4 times in 42 drawings, but that's still only a 42% profit; the rest came from the two and three number matches.

My average daily winnings were about $11.75, but that's including the $1200 I won by matching four numbers in only 4 of the drawings. Out of 42 drawings, I lost money in at least 36 drawings and had a few where I didn't match even two numbers. I'm talking about actual play when the previous day's winnings were usually less then the cost of the playslips I handed the clerk and I had to make up the difference or $16 to $20 when I only matched two numbers or one or zero.

I wasn't projecting a 50% or any profit playing forever or even for 6 months or a year; I'm not suggesting it's a winning system at least by my betting strategy. You won't find very many system makers that will mention the downside or explain why they quit using it.

"170 ways to match four for $300"

A full 14 number wheel has 2002 combos and 10 ways to match any four numbers. The overall odds are irreverent because a 14 number wheel can't match four numbers when less than four of the numbers are drawn. There are odds against matching the four numbers on the same line when four of the numbers are drawn.

"5610 ways to match three for $10"

There are 180 ways to match three numbers in a full 14 number wheel by matching any 4 of the numbers. Since the abbreviated wheel is guaranteed to match one of them, there are no odds against. There are only 55 ways to match any three numbers so there are odds against getting a three number match by using that abbreviated wheel when only three of the numbers are drawn.

Any wheel is only as good as the numbers you use. If you can't match all five numbers, you can't win the jackpot or match four by only matching three numbers. And there is no guarantee winning the jackpot by matching all five numbers by playing any wheel that's less than a full combo wheel.

I'm not talking about spending $65,620, I'm talking about spending $1 and coming up with one of those 65,250 combinations with a smart strategy.

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

I'm not talking about spending $65,620, I'm talking about spending $1 and coming up with one of those 65,250 combinations with a smart strategy.

I like the idea of playing $65,620. over the course of a year for double that amount in aactual play. You had a great idea that you didn't know you had RJ. I'm sure mc will want a piece of this action.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20147 Posts Offline

Posted: July 18, 2012, 6:22 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on July 18, 2012

I like the idea of playing $65,620. over the course of a year for double that amount in aactual play. You had a great idea that you didn't know you had RJ. I'm sure mc will want a piece of this action.

I don't know about the great idea that I didn't know I had but I do know I don't have $5,000 a year to spend on lotteries let alone $65,000.

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

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: July 18, 2012, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on July 18, 2012

According to the Ohio Lottery website the odds of 1 ticket matching four numbers are 3387 to 1.

That sounds correct Stack considering they keep 90% of the money...... You said you were getting $300. for matching 4 numbers.... so they are taking in $3387. in order to pay out that $300.

But we know that you can get "better" odds if your timing is good.

United States Member #128790 June 2, 2012 5431 Posts Offline

Posted: July 19, 2012, 1:19 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on June 4, 2012

Because the balls are NUMBERED, it is not a random event.

If half the balls were RED, and half the balls were BLUE, what would be the odds of getting all red or all blue?

Are odds the same for odd/even combinations, because half the balls are odd, and half the balls are even?

i think that when someone is aware of pattern, it's because the balls have numbers on them which makes it easier to categorize every behavior possible and make a somewhat educated prediction based on those behaviors. So yes, technically, if there were no numbers on the balls, the attempt to make sense of the chaos under those circumstances would be a waste of time and effort. Without numbers on the balls, no data can be collected and analyzed.

i also believe the fact that you are aware of numbers on the balls have an affect on the outcome.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: July 19, 2012, 11:32 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by onlymoney on July 19, 2012

i think that when someone is aware of pattern, it's because the balls have numbers on them which makes it easier to categorize every behavior possible and make a somewhat educated prediction based on those behaviors. So yes, technically, if there were no numbers on the balls, the attempt to make sense of the chaos under those circumstances would be a waste of time and effort. Without numbers on the balls, no data can be collected and analyzed.

i also believe the fact that you are aware of numbers on the balls have an affect on the outcome.

Thank you money,

I have been accused of "wasting my time" trying to correctly pick the winning numbers more often than the stated lottery odds. They say it is only "luck" anytime someone hits 5+0.

That sounds right, 575757 chances divided by 3387 means there are ~170 winning combinations.

That brings us right back to the original question.

Each 14 number group has 10 four number matches (when four of the numbers are drawn) so each group should average 1 four number match every 17 drawings. While I didn't play the same 14 numbers each drawing, the 14 numbers I played on average matched four numbers once out of every ten drawings. Because we know some groups of numbers HAD better odds in the past we can conclude there are groups that will have better odds in the future.

Since the cost of the wheel was $20, I needed one four number match every 15 drawings to show a small profit by matching two or three numbers in the other 14 drawings. My problem wasn't getting better odds, it was finding a group of 14 numbers that matched 5 numbers enough times to make the play worthwhile. The conclusion I reached was 14 numbers weren't enough and adding more numbers increased the cost of play.

mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 20147 Posts Offline

Posted: July 19, 2012, 4:31 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on July 19, 2012

That brings us right back to the original question.

Each 14 number group has 10 four number matches (when four of the numbers are drawn) so each group should average 1 four number match every 17 drawings. While I didn't play the same 14 numbers each drawing, the 14 numbers I played on average matched four numbers once out of every ten drawings. Because we know some groups of numbers HAD better odds in the past we can conclude there are groups that will have better odds in the future.

Since the cost of the wheel was $20, I needed one four number match every 15 drawings to show a small profit by matching two or three numbers in the other 14 drawings. My problem wasn't getting better odds, it was finding a group of 14 numbers that matched 5 numbers enough times to make the play worthwhile. The conclusion I reached was 14 numbers weren't enough and adding more numbers increased the cost of play.

That brings us right back to the original question.

I think the original question got lost in the chaos of the thread. What was it?

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