United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Stack47,
"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..."
There was no need for you to mention it the first time.
"...before it finally sinks in his simulations are useless?"
How many times am I going to have to ask you to do some research on the science of simulating stochastic processes? Believe it or not, I actually do think that if you were to study long and hard enough, you might just begin to understand how valuable my simulations are.
Open your mind Stack47. You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees.
I read your post above. I'm sorry you don't know the answers to your questions, and that I've addressed them multiple times in the past. You should at least know why I would not assign myself the task of producing a report that I know the substance of beforehand, and one which YOU and Stack47 would reject. You say Gail Howard's program is "good." How do you define good in this context? The only way you will be convinced that non-computerized lottery draws cannot be predicted, is if you do what I suggested and prove it to yourself.
As long as the both of you remain convinced that past drawing results can have an effect on present and future ones, you will reject what I'm telling you. Unfortunately, I'm afraid your anger is a result of your fear that you're wrong, and that the implications of that to you psychologically, are profound.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
I'm afraid your anger is a result of your fear that you're wrong, and that the implications of that to you psychologically, are profound.
Too bad for you Jammy...... because in reality it is those of you who refuse to accept the Divine order of all things that will ultimately suffer the most lasting, permanent and profound psychological damage.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on Jun 30, 2013
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, andNOT 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.
"What with the snakeoil? You really need to get more original."
Based on his writing style and delusions of grandeur, I'm surprised he doesn't use the word "humbug" because snake oil is a liquid concoction of questionable medical value. Do you think he bought a system that suggested putting a dot of acid on a sugar cube and swallowing it before analyzing numbers?
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jun 30, 2013
Stack47,
"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..."
There was no need for you to mention it the first time.
"...before it finally sinks in his simulations are useless?"
How many times am I going to have to ask you to do some research on the science of simulating stochastic processes? Believe it or not, I actually do think that if you were to study long and hard enough, you might just begin to understand how valuable my simulations are.
Open your mind Stack47. You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees.
I read your post above. I'm sorry you don't know the answers to your questions, and that I've addressed them multiple times in the past. You should at least know why I would not assign myself the task of producing a report that I know the substance of beforehand, and one which YOU and Stack47 would reject. You say Gail Howard's program is "good." How do you define good in this context? The only way you will be convinced that non-computerized lottery draws cannot be predicted, is if you do what I suggested and prove it to yourself.
As long as the both of you remain convinced that past drawing results can have an effect on present and future ones, you will reject what I'm telling you. Unfortunately, I'm afraid your anger is a result of your fear that you're wrong, and that the implications of that to you psychologically, are profound.
--Jimmy4164
"How many times am I going to have to ask you to do some research on the science of simulating stochastic processes?"
You should be somewhat knowledgeable of how lottery players wager just from the fact you post on this site, but you're still clueless. What is the point of presenting probable outcomes when there is an almost infinite variance in the wagering?
Congratulations on your ability to run a simulation showing the probable outcome with finite variances in wagering, but where's the value in your conclusions when the majority of state lotteries have fixed payoffs and will accept any wagers until the total wagers reach a set maximum limit?
"You say Gail Howard's program is "good." How do you define good in this context?"
I won't speak for LB, but IMO it's no different than anyone purchasing anything people believe is worth the cost even if says snake oil on the bottle. Anyone can collect the same data Howard has, but the value is based on the analysing tools. Anybody can spend months or years developing analyst software and wheels similar to Howard's, but why waste the time when what they're looking for is already there?
"You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees."
Actually I'm on a message board discussing lottery related topics. If this was a Blackjack message board, you would probably tell a group of MIT students and professors they're wasting their time trying to develop a Blackjack winning system. It doesn't matter to me if I believe someone is wasting their time trying to do the improbable because it's their time not mine.
United States
Member #124,487
March 14, 2012
7,021 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Jul 1, 2013
"How many times am I going to have to ask you to do some research on the science of simulating stochastic processes?"
You should be somewhat knowledgeable of how lottery players wager just from the fact you post on this site, but you're still clueless. What is the point of presenting probable outcomes when there is an almost infinite variance in the wagering?
Congratulations on your ability to run a simulation showing the probable outcome with finite variances in wagering, but where's the value in your conclusions when the majority of state lotteries have fixed payoffs and will accept any wagers until the total wagers reach a set maximum limit?
"You say Gail Howard's program is "good." How do you define good in this context?"
I won't speak for LB, but IMO it's no different than anyone purchasing anything people believe is worth the cost even if says snake oil on the bottle. Anyone can collect the same data Howard has, but the value is based on the analysing tools. Anybody can spend months or years developing analyst software and wheels similar to Howard's, but why waste the time when what they're looking for is already there?
"You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees."
Actually I'm on a message board discussing lottery related topics. If this was a Blackjack message board, you would probably tell a group of MIT students and professors they're wasting their time trying to develop a Blackjack winning system. It doesn't matter to me if I believe someone is wasting their time trying to do the improbable because it's their time not mine.
You say Gail Howard's program is "good." How do you define good in this context?"
I can find the top pairs, triads for any game in the country. I can move to Viriginia or Texas and I can get that data easily at the push of the button.
If you dont think their is a difference between a pair that hits 102 times historical, and one that hits 62 times historical, then I would like you to write a detailed report not on the fallacies of playing losing numbers.
You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees."
Was it not Thomas Edison who said, something to effect of "I have not failed 99 times, but rather successfully determined 99 ways that will not produce the desired results."?
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Stack47,
I see you've failed to follow up on the advice I gave you two years ago.
A more surefire way than buying lottery tickets to become rich and famous would be to publish your lottery beating methods in a peer reviewed journal. Then, even the "Lottery Nazis" at Wikipedia might give you some coverage!
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jul 1, 2013
Stack47,
I see you've failed to follow up on the advice I gave you two years ago.
A more surefire way than buying lottery tickets to become rich and famous would be to publish your lottery beating methods in a peer reviewed journal. Then, even the "Lottery Nazis" at Wikipedia might give you some coverage!
You guys are chasing your tails and you have bigger problems than I originally thought.
--Jimmy4164
"This graph depicts the frequency distribution of the Prize Ratios resulting from quadrupling the number of draws for each of the 50,000 players from 5,000 to 20,000."
This question alone is why I believe the test should be more realistic pick-3 play. Considering the fact a player age 18 would be 72 at the end of the test, this questions should be "Will anyone still be alive after 20,000 draws?".
Thought I'd add a comment by you and one by me from that discussion. I should ask you again if nobody can make a profit playing pick-3, who collected the $601 million the PA lottery paid their winners in three years, but you'll run a simulations were a 1 million imaginary players purchase five $1 QPs for the next billion years.
BTW, is Michael Shackleford still a "leading consultant for the casino industry"?
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on Jul 1, 2013
You say Gail Howard's program is "good." How do you define good in this context?"
I can find the top pairs, triads for any game in the country. I can move to Viriginia or Texas and I can get that data easily at the push of the button.
If you dont think their is a difference between a pair that hits 102 times historical, and one that hits 62 times historical, then I would like you to write a detailed report not on the fallacies of playing losing numbers.
You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees."
Was it not Thomas Edison who said, something to effect of "I have not failed 99 times, but rather successfully determined 99 ways that will not produce the desired results."?
To me buying a lottery software is no different than a golfer getting lessons from a Pro. The golfer is playing and will continue playing with or without any help from a Pro. It should be obvious the LP members are playing lottery games and will continue play without or without any criticism from Jimmy. Been awhile since I priced Gail Howard's products, but how much a player is willing to spend is their decision. They can decide if it's worth the cost and unless Jimmy has thoroughly evaluated the program and is critiquing it, his comments about it are useless as usual.
Jimmy owes some of gaming experts an apology because he only shows their negative articles. Even Don Catlin wrote something like "that being said, if you're still interested in gambling, I'll show you a better way".