Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 20, 2017, 8:51 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot?

Topic closed. 557 replies. Last post 3 years ago by sflottolover.

 Page 14 of 38
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 7:38 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

That "IF" is a pretty big one in your "4 IF 4" this time.  You're really getting daring, throwing away 46 of the 56 possibilities!  Unfortunately, this way, you can only expect your \$150 "guaranteed" win about once every 415 draws.

\$25 per draw - Oh well - being a positive thinker, you might get lucky and hit one of the big ones too!

Good luck!

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 7:40 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

That "IF" is a pretty big one in your "4 IF 4" this time.  You're really getting daring, throwing away 46 of the 56 possibilities!  Unfortunately, this way, you can only expect your \$150 "guaranteed" win about once every 415 draws.

\$25 per draw - Oh well - being a positive thinker, you might get lucky and hit one of the big ones too!

Good luck!

Thanks, I would rather hit once every 415 draws than start over every draw with QPs.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 7:43 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

That "IF" is a pretty big one in your "4 IF 4" this time.  You're really getting daring, throwing away 46 of the 56 possibilities!  Unfortunately, this way, you can only expect your \$150 "guaranteed" win about once every 415 draws.

\$25 per draw - Oh well - being a positive thinker, you might get lucky and hit one of the big ones too!

Good luck!

If you can ever find a simulator that will test a set of lines instead of 1 or 2 you might be onto something.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 7:51 pm - IP Logged

If you can ever find a simulator that will test a set of lines instead of 1 or 2 you might be onto something.

Why?

This single line simulator reveals all you need to know about the games.

If you think there is more to know, think again.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 7:56 pm - IP Logged

Why?

This single line simulator reveals all you need to know about the games.

If you think there is more to know, think again.

Number groups have proven to BETTER in the short term (over ramdom) and are therefore a BETTER bet.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 8:01 pm - IP Logged

Number groups have proven to BETTER in the short term (over ramdom) and are therefore a BETTER bet.

Depends on which "short term" you observe.  Some are winners, others are losers.  That's why mathematicians (and casinos) look at the "long term."

Think long and hard about the quote in my signature line.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 8:08 pm - IP Logged

Depends on which "short term" you observe.  Some are winners, others are losers.  That's why mathematicians (and casinos) look at the "long term."

Think long and hard about the quote in my signature line.

That's true, but the "short term" I'm talking about is the moment in time when I happen to be playing. In other words a winning set of numbers has a much easer chance of hitting my group of 28 numbers than it does hitting your 98,820 ramdom lines on a single draw.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 8:32 pm - IP Logged

That's true, but the "short term" I'm talking about is the moment in time when I happen to be playing. In other words a winning set of numbers has a much easer chance of hitting my group of 28 numbers than it does hitting your 98,820 ramdom lines on a single draw.

It's not clear to me what you mean here...

The only control you have over your winnings in the lottery is their DISTRIBUTION.

If lotteries did not offer Quick Picks, I would use one of your wheeling methods too, because I prefer to receive a lot of small wins rather rare large ones while I wait and hope for a big hit.  Where we differ is in our expectations about our long term winnings.  Unless a person is doing something silly like betting their year's stake every Jan 1 on one play, I know that overall, it really doesn't make any difference.  One easy way to see this is to think about how the winnings stream of two Pick-3 players would differ over several years if one Boxed their favorite 10 numbers (of the day) every day, and the other bought 10 straights of the same numbers.  If they keep track long enough, they will end up with approximately the same amounts, but the Box ticket buyer will cash a lot more winning tickets!

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 28, 2013, 9:29 pm - IP Logged

It's not clear to me what you mean here...

The only control you have over your winnings in the lottery is their DISTRIBUTION.

If lotteries did not offer Quick Picks, I would use one of your wheeling methods too, because I prefer to receive a lot of small wins rather rare large ones while I wait and hope for a big hit.  Where we differ is in our expectations about our long term winnings.  Unless a person is doing something silly like betting their year's stake every Jan 1 on one play, I know that overall, it really doesn't make any difference.  One easy way to see this is to think about how the winnings stream of two Pick-3 players would differ over several years if one Boxed their favorite 10 numbers (of the day) every day, and the other bought 10 straights of the same numbers.  If they keep track long enough, they will end up with approximately the same amounts, but the Box ticket buyer will cash a lot more winning tickets!

Have you tried ripping this guy apart yet Jammy?

http://gat.anastasios-tampakis.net/resources/

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 30, 2013, 11:20 am - IP Logged

Depends on which "short term" you observe.  Some are winners, others are losers.  That's why mathematicians (and casinos) look at the "long term."

Think long and hard about the quote in my signature line.

Do you often feel pathetic, embarrassed and quite Jammy?

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 30, 2013, 11:21 am - IP Logged

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 30, 2013, 11:22 am - IP Logged

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 30, 2013, 12:04 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

Your juvenile posts really don't deserve responses, but hopefully there are more mature people among the many viewers of this thread.

"Have you tried ripping this guy apart yet Jammy?"

No, and I won't be wasting my time in the future with Mr. Tampakis.  You won't lose any more if you employ "systems" to choose your numbers, as long as you use all of your lottery budget for ticket purchases, and NOT SNAKE OIL SOFTWARE PURCHASES!

"Do you often feel pathetic, embarrassed and quite Jammy?"

Pathetic?  Embarrassed?  No.

"quite?"  I didn't know there was such a state.  Please Explain.

If you insist on deluding yourself into believing that ping pong balls have memories, I suggest that you assemble the results of one of the long running Pick-3 games that you suspect can be beaten into a data file.  Then, rigorously test it for randomness using the techniques you find here:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir6483.pdf

Report back here when you're ready to publish your results.

I'm sure you can get some assistance from your buddies here who program computers.

--Jimmy4164

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 30, 2013, 1:05 pm - IP Logged

That's true, but the "short term" I'm talking about is the moment in time when I happen to be playing. In other words a winning set of numbers has a much easer chance of hitting my group of 28 numbers than it does hitting your 98,820 ramdom lines on a single draw.

We're right back to being lectured about why lotteries and casinos make profits in the long term and the same tired old point that systems players believe they can control the outcomes. He should be lecturing the state lotteries about their fixed payoffs and allowing self-pick options. They can't prevent one player from betting \$61 on a pick-4 number and winning \$302,600 or hundreds of pick-3 or pick-4 wagering on one combination.

If 25,000 players all bet \$5 on five different straight QP numbers for five years, the results will show the house will have a 50% edge and keep 50% of the total sales. Anyone can get the same results using any form of gambling with fixed bets and fixed results. His stimulation is no different than a Roulette simulation showing 38 players all betting \$1 on 38 different numbers and the house wins 5.26% on every spin. In the long term, his data will show some of the 38 players won more than they wagered and some won less, but the end results will still show a 5.26% house profit.

"In other words a winning set of numbers has a much easer chance of hitting my group of 28 numbers than it does hitting your 98,820 ramdom lines on a single draw."

If a player bought 98,280 QPs, they should match four numbers five times and have odds of 6.6 to 1 against winning \$10,000. If your full 28 number wheel matched just four numbers, you'll have 24 four number matches. I'll probably get another lecture on "IF" as if the rules require the players to just buy QPs and it's against the rules to make conditional bets.

We know the odds against matching a three digit number is 999 to 1 and a win will payoff \$499 to 1, but we can bet \$3 to win \$1497 with same 999 to 1 odds of matching the three digit number. How many more times do you think I'll have to tell him, there are no rules saying we must play the same numbers every drawing, making the same size bet for the rest of our lives before it finally sinks in his simulations are useless?

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 30, 2013, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie316,

Your juvenile posts really don't deserve responses, but hopefully there are more mature people among the many viewers of this thread.

"Have you tried ripping this guy apart yet Jammy?"

No, and I won't be wasting my time in the future with Mr. Tampakis.  You won't lose any more if you employ "systems" to choose your numbers, as long as you use all of your lottery budget for ticket purchases, and NOT SNAKE OIL SOFTWARE PURCHASES!

"Do you often feel pathetic, embarrassed and quite Jammy?"

Pathetic?  Embarrassed?  No.

"quite?"  I didn't know there was such a state.  Please Explain.

If you insist on deluding yourself into believing that ping pong balls have memories, I suggest that you assemble the results of one of the long running Pick-3 games that you suspect can be beaten into a data file.  Then, rigorously test it for randomness using the techniques you find here:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir6483.pdf

Report back here when you're ready to publish your results.

I'm sure you can get some assistance from your buddies here who program computers.

--Jimmy4164

Have you tried ripping this guy apart yet Jammy?"

No, and I won't be wasting my time in the future with Mr. Tampakis.  You won't lose any more if you employ "systems" to choose your numbers, as long as you use all of your lottery budget for ticket purchases, and NOT SNAKE OIL SOFTWARE PURCHASES!

What with the snakeoil?

You really need to get more original.

I think Gail Howards lottery program is good.  Its not snake oil.  It has a few bugs, but its good.

You make no sense to take away peoples dreams.

You need to be more original, that way people will listen to you.

You cant take the work of others simulations and go along passing it off as if you thought of it, tested it, and so forth.

Why dont you do your own report and publish it?

Then, rigorously test it for randomness using the techniques you find here:

Why would I use somebody elses technique?  Thats preposterous.  If you want to find random then develop your own techniques!!

People who have techniques observed uncanny patterns and developed their own techniques!  You want us to report back to you like you are our superviser at work.  Preposterous!

You demand we publish as if we are going to win the noble prize for gaming, or something.

Why dont you go read what SOCRATES has to say about gambling.  Oh.  You probably dont want to waste your time.  You are not a true scientist or mathematican.

You are nothing but a snakeoil selective unscientific mathematician.

 Page 14 of 38