Welcome Guest
You last visited December 7, 2016, 8:59 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Are QPs randomly generated numbers?

Topic closed. 181 replies. Last post 4 years ago by RJOh.

 Page 9 of 13

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 11:29 am - IP Logged

Thank you L.L. for that pep talk!

Those QP's are just looking better and better all the time.

Ronnie I'm playing several of my games this week, with some LP generated QP's. I'll let you know how I fare.

WAIT.... I thought we agreed that "winning" is not the objective when using QPss?/??

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 11:42 am - IP Logged

In one post you just made an attempt to undermine the premisse of my dissertation in Numerology!

Needless to say, based on the above, I am a huge proponent of Number elimination as a strategic element to winning the lottery.

Ronnie and I only need this to work ONCE. I notice people around here discuss things as though the expectation of a system is for it to work for every single drawing. That would certainly be an impossible feat.

In building a system, a person tracks specific elements or every element of the game to identify relative consistencies and try to leverage those to one's advantage. In the MM for example, more times than nought say 3:1, numbers do not repeat from the last drawing. So we use that as a starting point.

In building a system, a person tracks specific elements or every element of the game to identify relative consistencies and try to leverage those to one's advantage. In the MM for example, more times than nought say 3:1, numbers do not repeat from the last drawing. So we use that as a starting point.

This is off the QP topic but I think it bears mentioning that you are using the word "system" in place of the word "strategy" or "method".  What you are talking about is a method for choosing the numbers to play,  which is only the first step in playing non schmuckish QPs. The second step is the "system" that is chosen to reduce the playing numbers to a usable and playable number of lines.......

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 12:19 pm - IP Logged

Okay, let's take a quick looksie at something in an effort to substantiate my point. Point of reference is the past (2) sets of winning PB numbers, Ronnie, and what they have in common.

10/6/2012  15-26-34-36-59-35

10/3/2012  17-23-36-55-59-10

Now, had a player chose to do Quick-Picks here for 10/6, and it eliminated any numbers from 10/3's winning combination, they clearly lose and don't match any numbers at all. On the other hand, if it kicks out a couple of lines which contain any repeated numbers like it usually does, and those numbers were in the last draw, then the current winning draw is a DIRECT PRODUCT of the LAST DRAW.

Any (1) number repeated in the next draw, Ronnie, makes it the same combo as the last ...except with the rest of the numbers to complete it. As you know, it's all about permutations with any of these games. With so many permutations in a game like this, how is possible to strategically permutate the right numbers when we don't know if or when any (1) number will repeat? If any number does repeat, how can we know wich other numbers to put with it in order to complete the set for a win?

If NONE of them repeat, and you HAVE any of them in your set of numbers, then you also clearly know you haven't won the big one as well. See how all this can work both ways...for you, or, against you? We can never know what the outcome will be due to so many possibilities and pre-tests...in that order. This scenario applies to both self and quick-pick players. From where I'm standing, I can see how any combination of numbers will win no matter how outlandish it may seem or look.

I'm pretty good at cornering the winning numbers in a 0-9 game. But, with fifty times the amount of numbers to work through and then eliminate some, it becomes a cost, liability, and ROI (Return On Investment) issue with me. Therefore, I limit how often I play and how much give away. Gotta remember, Ronnie, this isn't a game where we can effectively begin with all combos and narrow down to a reasonable set, dollar-wise, to play after the last draw.Personally, I've always done much better with QP's in both MM's and PB.

L.L.

It all depends LL....... As i said earlier, if your objective is to play a few random lines for the fun of being part of the game your absolutely right and I agree 100%.

Just understand that YOUR objectives are not necessarily EVERYONES objectives.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 12:19 pm - IP Logged

I'm pretty good at cornering the winning numbers in a 0-9 game. But, with fifty times the amount of numbers to work through and then eliminate some, it becomes a cost, liability, and ROI (Return On Investment)

Everyone's argument seems to be "you cant play that many lines" when the fact of the matter is you can play as many lines as you have money to pay for........  ( up to around 100,000 lines because of logistics)

Then your argument will be, "no one has that much to spend" which AGAIN is simply not true.

I watched a show called 30 for 30 on cable the other night and Charles Barkley was asked, "how much money have you lost gambling" and his response was "\$10 million" as he shrugged his shoulders..........

If Charles had used my method and my number picks (full 28 number wheel) over the past 30 draws at a cost of \$98,820. per draw he would be up over \$16 million right now.

The most interesting part though is the fact that Stack introduced me to systems, and the use of a 4 if 4 SYSTEM produced near the same results at a cost of \$4931 per draw instead of \$98,280 per draw.

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 12:58 pm - IP Logged

In one post you just made an attempt to undermine the premisse of my dissertation in Numerology!

Needless to say, based on the above, I am a huge proponent of Number elimination as a strategic element to winning the lottery.

Ronnie and I only need this to work ONCE. I notice people around here discuss things as though the expectation of a system is for it to work for every single drawing. That would certainly be an impossible feat.

In building a system, a person tracks specific elements or every element of the game to identify relative consistencies and try to leverage those to one's advantage. In the MM for example, more times than nought say 3:1, numbers do not repeat from the last drawing. So we use that as a starting point.

OB, I get exactly what you're saying and trying to do, but there are still too many parameters in this game to even begin establishing consistencies. If I narrowed it down, effectively, to even 500,000 combinations there would still be so much room for variance from one draw to the next that matching (3) numbers is still a short trip down a long road for me. I don't knock anyone trying to apply a systematic approach here but, buddy, they've seriously got their work cut out...and how.

Here's what you do: go and take a look at the payouts for either of PB or MM's on 3,4, and 5 number matches. For every "X" amount of people that get (3) numbers, many less will get (4), and just as many less, most often NONE, will get (5). We know what the stats are on (6) of (6).

So, this tells Lucky that it's always (1) number which is making the difference in getting to any of the payouts...ONE NUMBER. That combination of (1) number along with the remaining (2), (3), or (4) is where the difficulty lies. In all the millions of combos sold each draw, look at how many get even (3) numbers on a single line...even (2).

In contrast to your 3:1, I'm FULLY persuaded that if you INCLUDE the numbers from the last draw consistently, you can at least depend on matching (1) number every other draw or so. This can, at some point, foster a (3) number match up the road and possibly lead to more numbers numbers...no gaurantees. Do you understand what I'm driving at?

A self pick and quick pick can end up with the same numbers/combos in different areas...they're all in there. If you match (17) and (30) on a self pick and I match (4) and (50) on quick picks, what's the difference? We'd both still need the remaining numbers, by either method, to win the jackpot if the winning numbers were 2-4-17-30-50 (for a five number match).  These are just my personal, educated views okay. I do hope you win, though!!!

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19828 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 1:19 pm - IP Logged

I'm pretty good at cornering the winning numbers in a 0-9 game. But, with fifty times the amount of numbers to work through and then eliminate some, it becomes a cost, liability, and ROI (Return On Investment)

Everyone's argument seems to be "you cant play that many lines" when the fact of the matter is you can play as many lines as you have money to pay for........  ( up to around 100,000 lines because of logistics)

Then your argument will be, "no one has that much to spend" which AGAIN is simply not true.

I watched a show called 30 for 30 on cable the other night and Charles Barkley was asked, "how much money have you lost gambling" and his response was "\$10 million" as he shrugged his shoulders..........

If Charles had used my method and my number picks (full 28 number wheel) over the past 30 draws at a cost of \$98,820. per draw he would be up over \$16 million right now.

The most interesting part though is the fact that Stack introduced me to systems, and the use of a 4 if 4 SYSTEM produced near the same results at a cost of \$4931 per draw instead of \$98,280 per draw.

The Michigan couple that traveled to Massachusetts to spend \$300K playing its WindFall game when ever it rolled back proved that.  It's just that there aren't any creditable strategies for making a profit playing lotteries without getting very lucky as in gambling.  When ever one does come to light, it's considered a flaw in the game and the game is discontinued.

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

Bahamas
Member #133462
September 30, 2012
5946 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 1:26 pm - IP Logged

OB, I get exactly what you're saying and trying to do, but there are still too many parameters in this game to even begin establishing consistencies. If I narrowed it down, effectively, to even 500,000 combinations there would still be so much room for variance from one draw to the next that matching (3) numbers is still a short trip down a long road for me. I don't knock anyone trying to apply a systematic approach here but, buddy, they've seriously got their work cut out...and how.

Here's what you do: go and take a look at the payouts for either of PB or MM's on 3,4, and 5 number matches. For every "X" amount of people that get (3) numbers, many less will get (4), and just as many less, most often NONE, will get (5). We know what the stats are on (6) of (6).

So, this tells Lucky that it's always (1) number which is making the difference in getting to any of the payouts...ONE NUMBER. That combination of (1) number along with the remaining (2), (3), or (4) is where the difficulty lies. In all the millions of combos sold each draw, look at how many get even (3) numbers on a single line...even (2).

In contrast to your 3:1, I'm FULLY persuaded that if you INCLUDE the numbers from the last draw consistently, you can at least depend on matching (1) number every other draw or so. This can, at some point, foster a (3) number match up the road and possibly lead to more numbers numbers...no gaurantees. Do you understand what I'm driving at?

A self pick and quick pick can end up with the same numbers/combos in different areas...they're all in there. If you match (17) and (30) on a self pick and I match (4) and (50) on quick picks, what's the difference? We'd both still need the remaining numbers, by either method, to win the jackpot if the winning numbers were 2-4-17-30-50 (for a five number match).  These are just my personal, educated views okay. I do hope you win, though!!!

L.L.

LL

Your comments dismissing the 3:1 ratio are anecdotal at best. If you do the research, honestly, you will find that more times than nought there are no repeat numbers. The key to refining elements that combine to make a good system is to look for things that reoccur on a relatively consistent basis which again is the purpose of recording, tracking and analyzing data.

I take in your argumen,t though, I think one would achieve the very same goal by doing exactly opposite to what you are proposing. I am running an experiment as we speak on another thread. There, I am testing a formula I have for eliminating numbers for PM, MM and most recently FL Fantasy 5. Let's see how that pans out, but I must point out that part of that formula is to list those numbers that came in the very last drawing.

Too many parameters is exactly why people build systems, the goal is to bend if you will, the odds more in your favor. If only by one degree it's an imporvement than to totally depend on a terminal producing random combinations.

If I ever do win using this system (snowball's chance in hell) you will be the perfect candidate for my infomercial - lol.

"My name is LL and I didn't think OB's system woud ever work and only had as good a chance as a QP, but now that he's on his 3rd JP win I must say he made me a believer. For only 100k this system can be yours today."

"Everything works  ONCE!"

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 1:40 pm - IP Logged

I'm pretty good at cornering the winning numbers in a 0-9 game. But, with fifty times the amount of numbers to work through and then eliminate some, it becomes a cost, liability, and ROI (Return On Investment)

Everyone's argument seems to be "you cant play that many lines" when the fact of the matter is you can play as many lines as you have money to pay for........  ( up to around 100,000 lines because of logistics)

Then your argument will be, "no one has that much to spend" which AGAIN is simply not true.

I watched a show called 30 for 30 on cable the other night and Charles Barkley was asked, "how much money have you lost gambling" and his response was "\$10 million" as he shrugged his shoulders..........

If Charles had used my method and my number picks (full 28 number wheel) over the past 30 draws at a cost of \$98,820. per draw he would be up over \$16 million right now.

The most interesting part though is the fact that Stack introduced me to systems, and the use of a 4 if 4 SYSTEM produced near the same results at a cost of \$4931 per draw instead of \$98,280 per draw.

There are, in fact, lots of guys out there that have this kind of money to spend, Ronnie...I agree. Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Mitt Romney, the people on SHARK TANK, and many, many, many others...and I'm being very serious with you buddy. Problem is this: all these people are truly BIG BUSINESS PEOPLE that fully understand numbers, risk, and how to make (generate) money. Do you agree? So, I'm wondering why THEY haven't YET made a business out of winning MM's and PB with reasonable frequency.

They have the money, BY FAR, to play with and should seemingly be able to view this opportunity the same way you do. I see a problem for them with INVESTMENT, RISK, and LOSS possibilities outweighing the profits here. However, if you can honestly document your history here with this game and show profits via your books, then I'm absolutely certain that SHARK TANK would entertain your proposal without blinking an eye.

Now, had Charles Barkley only spent 1/2 as much on his \$10M gambling loss, and put the rest back into his pocket, he'd definitely be up by a minimum of \$5M right now...agree?

Banking institutions contain loan officers that specialize in making money and they're usually pretty sharp with numbers as well. I have to wonder why no one in this field is persuing the opportunity. There's a billion dollar Venture Capitalist, who's name I can't readily think of right now, that would seemingly be all over generating \$16M.

Do you not also see a problem with the fact that NONE of these candidates is a MM's or PB pioneer? I do. We're just talking, okay...no sarchasm or anything like that. If the PROFITS fully outweighed the RISK and LOSS factors, then these people and many other millionaires would be winning all the time in my opinion. Do I make any sense at all here?

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

United States
Member #111442
May 25, 2011
6323 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 1:49 pm - IP Logged

WAIT.... I thought we agreed that "winning" is not the objective when using QPss?/??

I'm in total agreement Ronnie316.

My only objective is to make a pile of money, could really care less about "winning".

Winning is for lazy losers.

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 2:46 pm - IP Logged

LL

Your comments dismissing the 3:1 ratio are anecdotal at best. If you do the research, honestly, you will find that more times than nought there are no repeat numbers. The key to refining elements that combine to make a good system is to look for things that reoccur on a relatively consistent basis which again is the purpose of recording, tracking and analyzing data.

I take in your argumen,t though, I think one would achieve the very same goal by doing exactly opposite to what you are proposing. I am running an experiment as we speak on another thread. There, I am testing a formula I have for eliminating numbers for PM, MM and most recently FL Fantasy 5. Let's see how that pans out, but I must point out that part of that formula is to list those numbers that came in the very last drawing.

Too many parameters is exactly why people build systems, the goal is to bend if you will, the odds more in your favor. If only by one degree it's an imporvement than to totally depend on a terminal producing random combinations.

If I ever do win using this system (snowball's chance in hell) you will be the perfect candidate for my infomercial - lol.

"My name is LL and I didn't think OB's system woud ever work and only had as good a chance as a QP, but now that he's on his 3rd JP win I must say he made me a believer. For only 100k this system can be yours today."

"...more times than not, there are no repeat numbers."

and then...

"...I must point out that part of that formula is to list those numbers that came in the very last drawing."

This isn't a very consistent approach to an inconsistent game, okay. Either you're going to play back some or all of the last numbers, or, you're not. Guess what? Either way, you're going to hit or miss on the same one's. A set Quick Picks is in the same batch of Self-Picks whether any of 'em win or not. Do you disagree with this logic? If 4-17-18-33-56 are chosen and and a set of QP's ends up producing 4-33-56 for a three number-match, isn't that just as good or no?

Until a player is able to really, effectively permutate a hefty amount of combos, I believe it's all going to be random. Even then, (1) number will be the determining factor. There are too many pieces in this puzzle to simply assert that, "These particular pieces fit the puzzle better at this time" on any given draw.

The one thing to keep in mind here is that the puzzle is started over again on every draw and every piece has a fair shot... self or quick pick. It never picks up where it left off and sometimes is uses pieces from the last draw and sometimes it doesn't. On an equal playing field with \$20, to assume that my QP's have less chance of doing ANYTHING than your SP's is completely baseless.

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 3:10 pm - IP Logged

There are, in fact, lots of guys out there that have this kind of money to spend, Ronnie...I agree. Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Mitt Romney, the people on SHARK TANK, and many, many, many others...and I'm being very serious with you buddy. Problem is this: all these people are truly BIG BUSINESS PEOPLE that fully understand numbers, risk, and how to make (generate) money. Do you agree? So, I'm wondering why THEY haven't YET made a business out of winning MM's and PB with reasonable frequency.

They have the money, BY FAR, to play with and should seemingly be able to view this opportunity the same way you do. I see a problem for them with INVESTMENT, RISK, and LOSS possibilities outweighing the profits here. However, if you can honestly document your history here with this game and show profits via your books, then I'm absolutely certain that SHARK TANK would entertain your proposal without blinking an eye.

Now, had Charles Barkley only spent 1/2 as much on his \$10M gambling loss, and put the rest back into his pocket, he'd definitely be up by a minimum of \$5M right now...agree?

Banking institutions contain loan officers that specialize in making money and they're usually pretty sharp with numbers as well. I have to wonder why no one in this field is persuing the opportunity. There's a billion dollar Venture Capitalist, who's name I can't readily think of right now, that would seemingly be all over generating \$16M.

Do you not also see a problem with the fact that NONE of these candidates is a MM's or PB pioneer? I do. We're just talking, okay...no sarchasm or anything like that. If the PROFITS fully outweighed the RISK and LOSS factors, then these people and many other millionaires would be winning all the time in my opinion. Do I make any sense at all here?

L.L.

Your the one who introduced "ROI" into the discussion LL. All I'm saying is that with a method and a system, it is possible to get BETTER ODDS that can NOT be obtained with QPs........ Its a simple FACT........

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 3:35 pm - IP Logged

Your the one who introduced "ROI" into the discussion LL. All I'm saying is that with a method and a system, it is possible to get BETTER ODDS that can NOT be obtained with QPs........ Its a simple FACT........

Okay, I understand. Maybe I got a little squirrely with the ROI deal...my bad. However, Ronnie, with so many combos even narrowed to a wheel of (28) numbers, explain how any combos from that set are better than Quick Picks. To an extent, self picks can be useful...I'll meet you half way. Remove the E-E-E-E-E, O-O-O-O-O, 1-2-3-4-5, 2-4-6-8-10, 3-5-7-9-11, etc, etc. and you still have a very level playing field between QP's and SP's. Disagree?

Anything outside of what I just basically mentioned can be a winning candidate...all things being equal with "X" amount of money being spent. I'm not talkin' about droppin' \$100K on a draw. If two people walk into a store with a \$100 and one does SP's while the other does QP's, it's gonna be an equal fight.

Where one might miss something, the other might have it. One thing's for sure, both will have matching numbers scattered everywhere...maybe even all (6) of 'em like my friend did some time ago.

I will respectfully disagree with the idea of better odds...unless you're talkin about fully permutated combos and spending a dump truck load of cash on those combos until and IF you win. Otherwise, apples to apples, QP's will run with anything out there hands down.

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

Bahamas
Member #133462
September 30, 2012
5946 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

"...more times than not, there are no repeat numbers."

and then...

"...I must point out that part of that formula is to list those numbers that came in the very last drawing."

This isn't a very consistent approach to an inconsistent game, okay. Either you're going to play back some or all of the last numbers, or, you're not. Guess what? Either way, you're going to hit or miss on the same one's. A set Quick Picks is in the same batch of Self-Picks whether any of 'em win or not. Do you disagree with this logic? If 4-17-18-33-56 are chosen and and a set of QP's ends up producing 4-33-56 for a three number-match, isn't that just as good or no?

Until a player is able to really, effectively permutate a hefty amount of combos, I believe it's all going to be random. Even then, (1) number will be the determining factor. There are too many pieces in this puzzle to simply assert that, "These particular pieces fit the puzzle better at this time" on any given draw.

The one thing to keep in mind here is that the puzzle is started over again on every draw and every piece has a fair shot... self or quick pick. It never picks up where it left off and sometimes is uses pieces from the last draw and sometimes it doesn't. On an equal playing field with \$20, to assume that my QP's have less chance of doing ANYTHING than your SP's is completely baseless.

L.L.

I include the numbers from the past drawing LL on my elimination list. That means I won't be using them to wheel for the upcoming drawing. There are no inconsitencies there.

"Everything works  ONCE!"

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 5:13 pm - IP Logged

I include the numbers from the past drawing LL on my elimination list. That means I won't be using them to wheel for the upcoming drawing. There are no inconsitencies there.

This further substantiates my original point. If you don't include any of the numbers from the last draw into your combos for the next one, and one of those numbers shows up, then you know for sure the jackpot's not yours. Correct? Then, if you DO include the last numbers into yours, and any of those numbers are drawn, then you know you've matched at least (1) and possibly more depending on the rest of your selections.

Is this not what I said a few posts back? I based this on the idea of remaining consistent with the last numbers drawn in an effort to guarantee at least getting (1) number every other draw or so. It has to make sense as the last couple of draws have produced my findings...among many other draws as well.

In other words, OB, if you'll just run the same numbers back consistently, then you should have no problem jumpstarting your matches with at least (1). I hope I've been a little clearer. I never said that every draw one will repeat, okay. The idea is to "just play 'em" for those times they do and you'll have an easy first number that you'll recognize instantly.

L.L.

Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

#lotto-4-a-living

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 8, 2012, 7:19 pm - IP Logged

Okay, I understand. Maybe I got a little squirrely with the ROI deal...my bad. However, Ronnie, with so many combos even narrowed to a wheel of (28) numbers, explain how any combos from that set are better than Quick Picks. To an extent, self picks can be useful...I'll meet you half way. Remove the E-E-E-E-E, O-O-O-O-O, 1-2-3-4-5, 2-4-6-8-10, 3-5-7-9-11, etc, etc. and you still have a very level playing field between QP's and SP's. Disagree?

Anything outside of what I just basically mentioned can be a winning candidate...all things being equal with "X" amount of money being spent. I'm not talkin' about droppin' \$100K on a draw. If two people walk into a store with a \$100 and one does SP's while the other does QP's, it's gonna be an equal fight.

Where one might miss something, the other might have it. One thing's for sure, both will have matching numbers scattered everywhere...maybe even all (6) of 'em like my friend did some time ago.

I will respectfully disagree with the idea of better odds...unless you're talkin about fully permutated combos and spending a dump truck load of cash on those combos until and IF you win. Otherwise, apples to apples, QP's will run with anything out there hands down.

L.L.

Ok then, how about a little friendly competition???

mcginnin56  Seems to be in your corner on this discussion so we will let him pull 50 LP QPs and post then for MM draws and I will play against him with a 2 if 5 of 56 LP wheel.

This is self pick VS. QP so I get to choose the input order for the wheel and choose the bonus numbers.

I'm predicting that I will win "hands down" lol. lol. lol.

What do you think LL??

 Page 9 of 13