Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 4:55 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Fallacies, and two REAL ways of improving your chances

Topic closed. 215 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Kumo.

Page 8 of 15
54
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Columbia, SC
United States
Member #135285
November 21, 2012
584 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 30, 2013, 4:06 pm - IP Logged

Sorry CinCin,

I think the joke is on you.  If you think I'm paranoid for referring to a "squad," check this out.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4727706_paid-forum-posting.html 

Do you think LP is too small an operation to benefit from this?

I hope you get to read this before the Squad does!

--Jimmy4164

That was an interesting link, Jimmy. Thanks for sharing. Even though I realize times are really bad everywhere, Rdgnr seems to be one of very high intellect, and I highly doubt getting paid pennies for forum posts would be something that would even phase someone like him. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but I think there'd be more money in recycling bottles and soda cans picked up from the side of the road.

"If you can DREAM it, you can DO it!"- Walt Disney

    Avatar
    The land of Canals
    United States
    Member #137589
    January 7, 2013
    168 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 30, 2013, 4:37 pm - IP Logged

    That was an interesting link, Jimmy. Thanks for sharing. Even though I realize times are really bad everywhere, Rdgnr seems to be one of very high intellect, and I highly doubt getting paid pennies for forum posts would be something that would even phase someone like him. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but I think there'd be more money in recycling bottles and soda cans picked up from the side of the road.

    I Agree!

    “A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.” 
     Steve Martin

    Cool


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 30, 2013, 6:54 pm - IP Logged

      That was an interesting link, Jimmy. Thanks for sharing. Even though I realize times are really bad everywhere, Rdgnr seems to be one of very high intellect, and I highly doubt getting paid pennies for forum posts would be something that would even phase someone like him. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but I think there'd be more money in recycling bottles and soda cans picked up from the side of the road.

      CinCin & Carvella05,

      So I guess I can assume you still believe that only paranoia could cause someone to see evidence of people posting here with vested interests.  Oh well... 

      Jimjwright and yoho quite handily dispatched BobP's attempt at confusing the issue of sets in lotto.  Check out his website and you'll see that he has a vested interest in people believing what he posted because he supports the sale of software that is based on it.

      --Jimmy4164

        jimjwright's avatar - Yellow 3.png
        Park City, UT
        United States
        Member #69864
        January 18, 2009
        993 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 30, 2013, 7:12 pm - IP Logged

        CinCin & Carvella05,

        So I guess I can assume you still believe that only paranoia could cause someone to see evidence of people posting here with vested interests.  Oh well... 

        Jimjwright and yoho quite handily dispatched BobP's attempt at confusing the issue of sets in lotto.  Check out his website and you'll see that he has a vested interest in people believing what he posted because he supports the sale of software that is based on it.

        --Jimmy4164

        I wasn't trying to dispatch BobP, I respect him a lot.  He is a lottery player, like I am and we both enjoy playing and we like working with numbers.  In this particular case I thought his logic was wrong.  I check out his website all the time and paid $5 dollars for access to his e-book.  It was money well spent.

        I don't purchase lottery software because I'm quite capable of writing my own software to test out a theory.

        Jimmy

          rdgrnr's avatar - walt
          Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
          United States
          Member #73904
          April 28, 2009
          14903 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 30, 2013, 7:33 pm - IP Logged

          That was an interesting link, Jimmy. Thanks for sharing. Even though I realize times are really bad everywhere, Rdgnr seems to be one of very high intellect, and I highly doubt getting paid pennies for forum posts would be something that would even phase someone like him. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but I think there'd be more money in recycling bottles and soda cans picked up from the side of the road.

          Well thank you for the kind words, CinCin!   Lover

          I'd appreciate it though if in the future instead of saying "very high intellect" you said "extremely high intellect" with "extremely" highlighted in both bold and italic.

          That might make it easier for me when I ask for a raise from my current $50 a post to $75.

          Thanks!

            rdgrnr's avatar - walt
            Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
            United States
            Member #73904
            April 28, 2009
            14903 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 30, 2013, 7:35 pm - IP Logged

            I Agree!

            Thank you, Carvella! Lover

              rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
              Texas
              United States
              Member #55889
              October 23, 2007
              5604 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 30, 2013, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

              CinCin & Carvella05,

              So I guess I can assume you still believe that only paranoia could cause someone to see evidence of people posting here with vested interests.  Oh well... 

              Jimjwright and yoho quite handily dispatched BobP's attempt at confusing the issue of sets in lotto.  Check out his website and you'll see that he has a vested interest in people believing what he posted because he supports the sale of software that is based on it.

              --Jimmy4164

              I reread BobP's post and I fail to find anywhere in that post any mention of his website.

              I do believe that strategy is a valid strategy. It does not guarantee a jackpot or a win, but there is no doubt putting all the numbers in play at least betters the odds than just playing the same number of lines as QP's.

              That's all we really can do is try to better our chances when playing the jackpot games unless QP's are your thing. Nothing wrong with that either. But if I'm gonna drop 9 or 10 bucks or more on MM, PB, or Lotto, I think I'll play as many numbers as I can and hope the winning digits fall on the same line.

              To each his own.

              CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

              A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

                Avatar
                Toronto
                Canada
                Member #138397
                January 26, 2013
                179 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 30, 2013, 9:51 pm - IP Logged

                I reread BobP's post and I fail to find anywhere in that post any mention of his website.

                I do believe that strategy is a valid strategy. It does not guarantee a jackpot or a win, but there is no doubt putting all the numbers in play at least betters the odds than just playing the same number of lines as QP's.

                That's all we really can do is try to better our chances when playing the jackpot games unless QP's are your thing. Nothing wrong with that either. But if I'm gonna drop 9 or 10 bucks or more on MM, PB, or Lotto, I think I'll play as many numbers as I can and hope the winning digits fall on the same line.

                To each his own.

                I'll be brutally honest. My logic was not complete. I said I was going to finish the math in another post, but I didn't do that, because it turns out my 

                math was not correct.

                 

                However, this does not mean that BobP's strategy is "valid". It is "valid", in the sense that it works just as well as any other strategy out there, but it 

                definitely does not do any better. There is no doubt that it does NOT better the odds. rcbbuckeye, I invite you to look through my reasoning.

                 

                Here is the other part of the flaw:

                 

                Let's assume that bobP's calculations are correct, and that your 6/48 game "becomes" 6/36, giving you a total of 6/1947792 chance of winning the jackpot.

                 

                This means if you buy 324,632 sets of tickets, or 2,597,056 tickets in total, your chances become 6*324632/1947792 = 1. BobP is essentially claiming you 

                can guarantee a jackpot win with only about 1/5th of the total tickets. This is obviously false, because whichever 1/5th of the tickets you buy, I can simply

                pick a ticket from the other 4/5th, and you wouldn't have won the jackpot.

                 

                Clearly there is a problem with BobP's reasoning. In fact, this is true with any system; If you think you can improve your odds, you're essentially saying that

                you can reach 100% chance of winning before buying every single ticket in the game; but that's obviously wrong because as long as one ticket isn't bought,

                there's a chance it'll show up and you won't win.

                 

                The flaw here, is that you're treating all the numbers the same. You're saying there are 6 winners, and 30 losers. This is false. The numbers are numbered. 

                Even if they're not winners, 1 is different from 2, 3 is different from 4.

                Let's say that 1-2-3-4-5-6 were the winning numbers.

                BobP's strategy overlooked the fact that for example

                1-2-10-11-12-13 and 

                1-2-11-12-13-14 are different, despite having the same winning numbers. The number of possibilities increase, because there are many situations where 

                the distribution of the winning numbers are the same, but the distribution of the losing numbers are different.

                  rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
                  Texas
                  United States
                  Member #55889
                  October 23, 2007
                  5604 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 30, 2013, 10:10 pm - IP Logged

                  I'll be brutally honest. My logic was not complete. I said I was going to finish the math in another post, but I didn't do that, because it turns out my 

                  math was not correct.

                   

                  However, this does not mean that BobP's strategy is "valid". It is "valid", in the sense that it works just as well as any other strategy out there, but it 

                  definitely does not do any better. There is no doubt that it does NOT better the odds. rcbbuckeye, I invite you to look through my reasoning.

                   

                  Here is the other part of the flaw:

                   

                  Let's assume that bobP's calculations are correct, and that your 6/48 game "becomes" 6/36, giving you a total of 6/1947792 chance of winning the jackpot.

                   

                  This means if you buy 324,632 sets of tickets, or 2,597,056 tickets in total, your chances become 6*324632/1947792 = 1. BobP is essentially claiming you 

                  can guarantee a jackpot win with only about 1/5th of the total tickets. This is obviously false, because whichever 1/5th of the tickets you buy, I can simply

                  pick a ticket from the other 4/5th, and you wouldn't have won the jackpot.

                   

                  Clearly there is a problem with BobP's reasoning. In fact, this is true with any system; If you think you can improve your odds, you're essentially saying that

                  you can reach 100% chance of winning before buying every single ticket in the game; but that's obviously wrong because as long as one ticket isn't bought,

                  there's a chance it'll show up and you won't win.

                   

                  The flaw here, is that you're treating all the numbers the same. You're saying there are 6 winners, and 30 losers. This is false. The numbers are numbered. 

                  Even if they're not winners, 1 is different from 2, 3 is different from 4.

                  Let's say that 1-2-3-4-5-6 were the winning numbers.

                  BobP's strategy overlooked the fact that for example

                  1-2-10-11-12-13 and 

                  1-2-11-12-13-14 are different, despite having the same winning numbers. The number of possibilities increase, because there are many situations where 

                  the distribution of the winning numbers are the same, but the distribution of the losing numbers are different.

                  Look thru Bob's post and my post and tell me where you see that a jackpot is "guaranteed". No such claim was made. What was claimed was that you have better odds by playing all the numbers in minimum lines than if you play the same number of lines that are QP's. Because there is no guarantee that if you buy 8 or 9 QP's, that you will be playing all the numbers in that game.

                  If you can't understand that, well, there is no point in me trying to explain it to you. Maybe Bob can explain it better.

                  CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

                  A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

                    Avatar
                    Toronto
                    Canada
                    Member #138397
                    January 26, 2013
                    179 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 30, 2013, 10:41 pm - IP Logged

                    Look thru Bob's post and my post and tell me where you see that a jackpot is "guaranteed". No such claim was made. What was claimed was that you have better odds by playing all the numbers in minimum lines than if you play the same number of lines that are QP's. Because there is no guarantee that if you buy 8 or 9 QP's, that you will be playing all the numbers in that game.

                    If you can't understand that, well, there is no point in me trying to explain it to you. Maybe Bob can explain it better.

                    It's not that I can't understand that. You're either not reading my post or not understanding it.

                     

                    Do you know what odds mean? Saying that strategy A has better odds than strategy B means two things:

                     

                    1) You can buy less lines and obtain the same odds as strategy B 

                    2) With the same number of lines, strategy A will have better odds than strategy B.

                     

                    These two are essentially the same thing. The point here, is that this implies that to obtain a 1:1 odd, i.e 100% chance i.e guarantee, 

                    strategy A would take less number of lines than strategy B. 

                     

                    What you failed to realize, is that "guarantee" doesn't mean winning 100% of the time with your method. It means achieving a 1:1 odds of winning.

                    No matter how small the odds, if you repeat the process many times, you'll eventually end up with a 1:1 chance of winning.

                     

                    I'm not saying you can guarantee the jackpot with only 1 trial of your strategy. I'm saying it can be guaranteed with enough trials of your strategy.

                    Does that make sense to you?

                     

                    @rcbbuckeye:

                    Even if you don't read the rest, read this. I see where you got tricked. You think that because all the winning numbers will appear, it has

                    a better chance because with quickpicks, that won't necessarily happen. This is a fallacy. While you do guarantee that you get all the 

                    winning numbers, you'll only get each number ONCE. 

                    In a quick pick on the other hand, while it's possible you miss a winning number, it's also possible you get a winning number more than once.

                    In the end, everything balances out. Simply covering all the winning numbers doesn't help you.

                      PlayToWin47's avatar - Lottery-041.jpg
                      Joplin MO
                      United States
                      Member #138489
                      January 28, 2013
                      190 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 30, 2013, 11:52 pm - IP Logged

                      yoho originally wrote...

                      To maximize your chances of winning a jackpot, you should spend your whole lottery allowance on a single draw.

                      This is true ... but it really depends on how much is being spent and/or what lottery you're playing as to how effective it is.

                      If you're playing one of the lotteries with millions:1 odds, and you're only spending a couple of bucks or-so a week, then decide to instead spend your $52-$104 or-so one time a year ... it really won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.  It might still work great for the smaller games with much lower odds.

                      If you're playing one of the lotteries with millions:1 odds, and you are already spending quite a lot per week or per drawing, then it might work well.  You can mix up your numbers such that you have so many combinations that you know you're gonna have some good wins.  Hopefully the numbers drawn will ALL fall on one of your boards ... BOOM !!!


                        United States
                        Member #93947
                        July 10, 2010
                        2180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 31, 2013, 12:51 am - IP Logged

                        I reread BobP's post and I fail to find anywhere in that post any mention of his website.

                        I do believe that strategy is a valid strategy. It does not guarantee a jackpot or a win, but there is no doubt putting all the numbers in play at least betters the odds than just playing the same number of lines as QP's.

                        That's all we really can do is try to better our chances when playing the jackpot games unless QP's are your thing. Nothing wrong with that either. But if I'm gonna drop 9 or 10 bucks or more on MM, PB, or Lotto, I think I'll play as many numbers as I can and hope the winning digits fall on the same line.

                        To each his own.

                        He used to provide links here to get people to go there for "free" stuff.  Just Google Robert Perkis Lotto.

                          BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                          Dump Water Florida
                          United States
                          Member #380
                          June 5, 2002
                          3104 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 31, 2013, 6:53 am - IP Logged

                          He used to provide links here to get people to go there for "free" stuff.  Just Google Robert Perkis Lotto.


                          There is a link to my website in my profile.  Todd gave me permission for a single thread in Systems to give away free copies of my book to LotteryPost members, I gave away hundreds.   My site is a lottery directory that includes links to software and systems.  Those that have affiliate offers I sign up for, but it isn't necessary to be listed.  Most listings are in the author's description, I don't try to push any of them.  When people ask for things that are among the "free" stuff on my site I've posted so, others have just as often posted the thing was available on my site.  Site's about 12 years old, don't need to promote it any more then LotteryPost needs promotion.

                          BobP

                            BobP's avatar - bobp avatar.png
                            Dump Water Florida
                            United States
                            Member #380
                            June 5, 2002
                            3104 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 31, 2013, 7:30 am - IP Logged

                            It's not that I can't understand that. You're either not reading my post or not understanding it.

                             

                            Do you know what odds mean? Saying that strategy A has better odds than strategy B means two things:

                             

                            1) You can buy less lines and obtain the same odds as strategy B 

                            2) With the same number of lines, strategy A will have better odds than strategy B.

                             

                            These two are essentially the same thing. The point here, is that this implies that to obtain a 1:1 odd, i.e 100% chance i.e guarantee, 

                            strategy A would take less number of lines than strategy B. 

                             

                            What you failed to realize, is that "guarantee" doesn't mean winning 100% of the time with your method. It means achieving a 1:1 odds of winning.

                            No matter how small the odds, if you repeat the process many times, you'll eventually end up with a 1:1 chance of winning.

                             

                            I'm not saying you can guarantee the jackpot with only 1 trial of your strategy. I'm saying it can be guaranteed with enough trials of your strategy.

                            Does that make sense to you?

                             

                            @rcbbuckeye:

                            Even if you don't read the rest, read this. I see where you got tricked. You think that because all the winning numbers will appear, it has

                            a better chance because with quickpicks, that won't necessarily happen. This is a fallacy. While you do guarantee that you get all the 

                            winning numbers, you'll only get each number ONCE. 

                            In a quick pick on the other hand, while it's possible you miss a winning number, it's also possible you get a winning number more than once.

                            In the end, everything balances out. Simply covering all the winning numbers doesn't help you.


                            No one is trying to trick anyone.

                            From a lottery player's perspective, one wants to eliminate some of the ways to lose.  Such as not
                            having all the winning numbers among lines played.

                            One of the ways to prevent this is to put all the numbers into play.

                            Doing so in the minimum number of lines helps to keep playing costs within reason.

                            Lottery strategy is based on exchanging chances to win for a better chance to win when the strategy
                            proves correct.  All strategies balance out, no way to prove they help or harm chances long term.

                            Yes, random means anything can happen, Quick Picks do win their fair share of prizes.

                            The lottery is a closed number universe, winning numbers can only come from within the universe.
                            This is why the overall odds never change, however there are odds for everything that can happen.

                            When in the 6/48 example we make a set of all the numbers in a minimum number of lines there is
                            no question 100% of the winning numbers will fall among 6 lines or less.  The lines without winning
                            numbers only serve the overall odds, they are what we give up to gain the better odds when the
                            strategy proves successful.  Think of the reduced to 6/36 or less odds as a sub-set.

                            Unlike most strategies, this one does not need prediction on the part of the player.  The winning
                            numbers will fall among six lines or less forming a 6/36 matrix.  Does this provide better odds of a
                            win then any randomly selected set of 6 lines?  Well yes when the randomly selected set of lines 
                            does not have all the winning numbers among them, the set that does have all the winning number 
                            must have better odds of winning then the set that can't win.

                            BobP

                              PlayToWin47's avatar - Lottery-041.jpg
                              Joplin MO
                              United States
                              Member #138489
                              January 28, 2013
                              190 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 31, 2013, 10:03 am - IP Logged

                              BobP wrote...

                              <snip> Does this provide better odds of a win then any randomly selected set of 6 lines?  Well yes when the randomly selected set of lines does not have all the winning numbers among them, the set that does have all the winning number must have better odds of winning then the set that can't win.

                              Please keep in mind...  Any system may make it "easier" to win (or at least seem easier), but the "odds" are a simply a calculation of the number set, including the number of plays that you're playing.  The ONLY way to improve the "odds" is to spend more money / play more boards.

                                 
                                Page 8 of 15