mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 19826 Posts Offline

Posted: February 5, 2013, 11:35 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on February 4, 2013

RJOh,

Brad Duke can make all the claims he wants, but his claims don't prove a thing. In fact, solid theoretical and simulated evidence, over centuries, has proved that his claims are worthless, regardless of whether he believes them or not.

Since you asked questions here, I hope you will take the time to read and understand the answers. I've read enough of your posts to suspect that you know and understand exactly what I talk about in my posts here, but that, like BobP, you probably have some vested interest in ensuring that as few as possible gain this knowledge.

"Why would anyone interested in winning a lottery jackpot write a program simulating playing and trying to win a lottery is a waste of time?"

I can't speak for Jimjwright, but the reason I did the same thing is pretty simple: to help as many people as possible to understand the mathematics of the lottery with the hope that my contribution helps reduce some of the "costs" spelled out in the book described here:

"Why do even well-educated people understand so little about mathematics? And what are the costs of our innumeracy? John Allen Paulos, in his celebrated bestseller first published in 1988, argues that our inability to deal rationally with very large numbers and the probabilities associated with them results in misinformed governmental policies, confused personal decisions, and an increased susceptibility to pseudoscience of all kinds. Innumeracy lets us know what we're missing, and how we can do something about it.

"Sprinkling his discussion of numbers and probabilities with quirky stories and anecdotes, Paulos ranges freely over many aspects of modern life, from contested elections to sports stats, from stock scams and newspaper psychics to diet and medical claims, sex discrimination, insurance, lotteries, and drug testing. Readers of Innumeracy will be rewarded with scores of astonishing facts, a fistful of powerful ideas, and, most important, a clearer, more quantitative way of looking at their world."

"like BobP, you probably have some vested interest in ensuring that as few as possible gain this knowledge"

Now you're getting down right silly suggesting BobP and I have some vested interest in players not knowing their odds of winning a lottery when it's on the back of most play slips and on every lottery website.

"the reason I did the same thing is pretty simple: to help as many people as possible to understand the mathematics of the lottery"

Do you really think anyone cares that you think they have little or no understanding of math because they enjoy buying lottery tickets?

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

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3474 Posts Offline

Posted: February 5, 2013, 11:53 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by rcbbuckeye on February 5, 2013

I understand what you are saying, and it's valid. Obviously, I or no one else would play 600 numbers in a minimum number of lines.

And, again, I never said there would be a guarantee of having the winning combination. It's just a way to reduce the odds. I believe it's a better way to play than just buying a bunch of QP's. Now if I'm only playing one line (which I do when playing MM or PB), then a QP is just as good as anything else. But for a strategy, to me, it's about looking for ways to gain a little edge. The only way to guarantee having the winning combination is to play every combination in the game.

"The only way to guarantee having the winning combination is to play every combination in the game."

Exactly. If the odds were 1 in 1,947,792 then you would be guaranteed to win by playing all 1,947,792 possibilities. How could you play every one of the possible combinations when you've only got enough choices to cover 2/3 of them?

There's nothing special about using all of the numbers. It guarantees that you've played all of the winning numbers, but it also guarantees that you've played all of the losing numbers.

Dump Water Florida United States Member #380 June 5, 2002 3103 Posts Offline

Posted: February 6, 2013, 9:02 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on February 5, 2013

"The only way to guarantee having the winning combination is to play every combination in the game."

Exactly. If the odds were 1 in 1,947,792 then you would be guaranteed to win by playing all 1,947,792 possibilities. How could you play every one of the possible combinations when you've only got enough choices to cover 2/3 of them?

There's nothing special about using all of the numbers. It guarantees that you've played all of the winning numbers, but it also guarantees that you've played all of the losing numbers.

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the winning numbers among their lines.

When one plays all the game's numbers on a minimum number of lines they are 100% guaranteed to have all the winning numbers among six lines or less. However, they still have to play ALL the lines necessary to put all the numbers into play and because we don't know the outcome in advance we go into the draw holding for 6/48, 8 lines in 12 million (though we know in advance what will happen as in 6/36 or less). After the draw we can see the effect of the squeeze down to 6/36 and judge how the strategy worked. Can't buy a win without knowing in advance which of the eight lines will make up the six or less.

It's just a strategy, like deciding not to play any of the winning numbers from the previous draw in the next, the strategy will prove correct about 45% of the time sweeping millions of combinations off the table and will be balanced by no chance to win a jackpot in 55% of the draws that will contain one or more winning numbers from the previous draw. Because we don't know whether the next draw will be the 45% or 55% we can't take advantage of the reduced odds to buy a win.

The odds of winning a prize are roughly one third of the actual number of combinations necessary to guarantee it using a wheel except for jackpots which are 1 to 1 using a full wheel. This is because the odds are an average where if you don't win within the odds you may win twice in the next series of plays and so on.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: February 6, 2013, 12:02 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimjwright on February 4, 2013

I wrote a lottery simulator program to test the premise for a 6/48 game. I created two test groups A & B.

For each game 8 random tickets were generated for Test Group A and 8 random tickets were generated for Test Group B.

For Test Group A the 8 tickets had all 48 numbers in play or no duplicate numbers.

For Test Group B the 8 tickets were just randomly generated with at least 1 duplicate number in play but in general had alot more duplicates in play.

The following picture depicts the results after 42,305,214 games or 338,441,172 tickets bought for Test Group A, and 338,441,172 tickets bought for Test Group B. The odds of matching 6 of 6 for this game is 12,271,512 to 1. If you divide 338,441,172 by 12,271,512 you get 27.579. So you can see both strategies matched roughly what was expected.

If you don't believe the numbers my program produced then I invite you to write you own lottery simulator to validate the numbers. Just be careful if you do this because the built-in functions srand()/rand() provided by the CRT do not have the precision required to validate a 6/48 game.

Jimmy

The "Squad" seems to have a short memory. Perhaps they need a refresher. Speaking

of "obvious" things -- It's so obvious that the same cast of characters scramble every time

someone makes a valid point or disproves one of the popular fallacies. If their friends

and families ever find out what they peddle and propagate, won't they be proud?!

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7310 Posts Offline

Posted: February 6, 2013, 4:54 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by onlymoney on February 4, 2013

Sometimes Steve gives out enough info in his sales letters which allow me to decipher the system. I've done it before on one of his system for P-5 games.

This one looks like it can be figured out based on what you wrote here. I'm willing to bet that the rest of the system is similar to his other systems involving progressive wagering. So the meat of the system can probably be figured out without spending hundreds.

The possible pairs are 00 through 99. Let's pick one pair, 15.

150-151-152-153-154-155-156-157-158-159

105-125-135-145-155-165-175-185-195 (no 115 because it's in the line below)

A total of 57 combos. He says 54 combos, so maybe this isn't his way, but i can't think of any other way.

You were on the right track, but it looks like Steve eliminates duplicate straight combos to get his total of 54. Any two digits in any two digit positions with all the other digits creates 60 straight combos, but 6 of the combos are duplicates: 115, 151, 155, 511, 515, and 551.

I don't know his betting strategy, but the playing strategy is similar to playing 10 box bets. In states where a box bet actually pays 1/6 of the straight prize, a player could get the same effect by betting a 50 cent box on 115 and 155 and $1 each on the other 8 boxes. If your 2 digits are drawn in any position, you win the box bet minus the $9 you payed for the tickets.

The odds against matching any two digits is 16.7 to 1. If a player averages one hit every five drawings, the payoff ratio is 122.2% so to win $7000 a player has to bet $5728 making $54 bets.

From what I've read, the Steve Player systems are based on parlays or winning three consecutive bets. Bet $54, to win $446, bet back $423, to win $3568, and the third bet, bet back $3564, and to win $29,435. After "winning the first bet", the out of pocket expense for second two bets is $31 and probably they say in big bold headlines, "you can win $29,400 on a $31 pick-3 bet".

Park City, UT United States Member #69864 January 18, 2009 993 Posts Offline

Posted: February 6, 2013, 5:30 pm - IP Logged

If you are interested in the finer details of the steve player system I mentioned its called Ultra-Win 3 system. Its only #6 on his top ten systems so he apparently has better systems :)

Texas United States Member #55889 October 23, 2007 5600 Posts Offline

Posted: February 6, 2013, 9:01 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 6, 2013

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the winning numbers among their lines.

When one plays all the game's numbers on a minimum number of lines they are 100% guaranteed to have all the winning numbers among six lines or less. However, they still have to play ALL the lines necessary to put all the numbers into play and because we don't know the outcome in advance we go into the draw holding for 6/48, 8 lines in 12 million (though we know in advance what will happen as in 6/36 or less). After the draw we can see the effect of the squeeze down to 6/36 and judge how the strategy worked. Can't buy a win without knowing in advance which of the eight lines will make up the six or less.

It's just a strategy, like deciding not to play any of the winning numbers from the previous draw in the next, the strategy will prove correct about 45% of the time sweeping millions of combinations off the table and will be balanced by no chance to win a jackpot in 55% of the draws that will contain one or more winning numbers from the previous draw. Because we don't know whether the next draw will be the 45% or 55% we can't take advantage of the reduced odds to buy a win.

The odds of winning a prize are roughly one third of the actual number of combinations necessary to guarantee it using a wheel except for jackpots which are 1 to 1 using a full wheel. This is because the odds are an average where if you don't win within the odds you may win twice in the next series of plays and so on.

BobP

"It's just a strategy". Bob, I said the same thing, but apparently, that part hasn't sunk in.

Doesn't matter. JimmyBooBoo and the others only reason to exist on LP is to say everyone else is wrong.

If we ignor them, they'll just end up talking to themselves. LOL.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: February 6, 2013, 11:51 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by CajunWin4 on February 6, 2013

If you got S. Players book or even go to web site . They discuss the Progressive Wagering System for Games !!!

I'll pass on the book.

Assuming what you're refering to as a "Progressive" betting system is what is sometimes called the "Martingale," I think you might finally like one of my posts, at least the first part of it.

Here's the part you should like. It's an excerpt from Michael Bluejay's in depth analysis of the Martingale:

"Here's how the Martingale can make you more likely to win in the short term: You'll win most of your sessions, but your wins will be small. Then on the rarer times that you lose, your losses will be much greater. Like most things in life, it's a trade-off."

Before you click to read his full discussion, here's something else to think about. If you read my posts discussing the results of simulations of Pick-3 games that revealed how randomness produced Standard Deviations in the Returns of individuals making it possible to actually come out ahead even though the lotteries have a huge edge, you might have been encouraged. However, if you look back at those results, you will find that the number of long term winners was miniscule. The reason this is true is because of the huge 50% edge held by the lotteries.

If you really want to INCREASE YOUR CHANCES of becoming a short term winner, you are going to have to consider games where the house edge is significantly lower. Roulette and Craps are likely candidates. You decide how much you can afford to lose and how many hours you want to spend on the days you play. From those numbers you calculate your unit bet size, remembering the house limitations and the expected number of consecutive losses you can handle. Then just Go For It! You stop either when you go bust, or your predetermined time limit expires. As M. Blujay points out, if you choose your parameters correctly, you will have many winning days!

NY United States Member #23835 October 16, 2005 3474 Posts Offline

Posted: February 7, 2013, 12:11 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by BobP on February 6, 2013

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the winning numbers among their lines.

When one plays all the game's numbers on a minimum number of lines they are 100% guaranteed to have all the winning numbers among six lines or less. However, they still have to play ALL the lines necessary to put all the numbers into play and because we don't know the outcome in advance we go into the draw holding for 6/48, 8 lines in 12 million (though we know in advance what will happen as in 6/36 or less). After the draw we can see the effect of the squeeze down to 6/36 and judge how the strategy worked. Can't buy a win without knowing in advance which of the eight lines will make up the six or less.

It's just a strategy, like deciding not to play any of the winning numbers from the previous draw in the next, the strategy will prove correct about 45% of the time sweeping millions of combinations off the table and will be balanced by no chance to win a jackpot in 55% of the draws that will contain one or more winning numbers from the previous draw. Because we don't know whether the next draw will be the 45% or 55% we can't take advantage of the reduced odds to buy a win.

The odds of winning a prize are roughly one third of the actual number of combinations necessary to guarantee it using a wheel except for jackpots which are 1 to 1 using a full wheel. This is because the odds are an average where if you don't win within the odds you may win twice in the next series of plays and so on.

BobP

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the losing numbers among their lines. Which of the millions of losing combinations, many of which use some of the winning numbers, are you unable to play using this "strategy"?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7310 Posts Offline

Posted: February 7, 2013, 12:52 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on February 7, 2013

When one plays all the game's numbers among their lines they are 100% guaranted to have all the losing numbers among their lines. Which of the millions of losing combinations, many of which use some of the winning numbers, are you unable to play using this "strategy"?

The object is to have all the losing numbers on 7 of the lines. It's not that difficult to understand.