Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 14, 2017, 7:36 pm
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 4 years ago by sflottolover.

Page 15 of 38
56
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 30, 2013, 11:46 pm - IP Logged

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.

Click here to begin your studies.

LottoBoner,

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


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 1, 2013, 10:42 am - IP Logged


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 1, 2013, 10:44 am - IP Logged

      Open your mind Stack47.  You're stuck in the loop of failure to see the forest for the trees.

      Jammy understands the science of failure.


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 1, 2013, 10:48 am - IP Logged

        No comment on the possibility of "reduced randomness" from page 6 Jammy?

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


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 1, 2013, 10:48 am - IP Logged


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 1, 2013, 11:08 am - IP Logged

            My mind is open to the possibility of reduced randomness.


              United States
              Member #116268
              September 7, 2011
              20244 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 1, 2013, 11:38 am - IP Logged

              Is you are mind open JAMMY?


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 1, 2013, 11:53 am - IP Logged

                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.

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7611 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 1, 2013, 12:11 pm - IP Logged

                  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.

                  "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?

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7611 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: July 1, 2013, 2:11 pm - IP Logged

                    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.

                    Click here to begin your studies.

                    LottoBoner,

                    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 #124493
                      March 14, 2012
                      7023 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 1, 2013, 2:31 pm - IP Logged

                      "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 #93947
                        July 10, 2010
                        2180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 1, 2013, 5:17 pm - IP Logged

                        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!

                        Click here for more of Stack47's unflinching resolve.

                        You guys are chasing your tails and you have bigger problems than I originally thought.

                        --Jimmy4164


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 1, 2013, 10:48 pm - IP Logged

                            Avatar
                            Kentucky
                            United States
                            Member #32652
                            February 14, 2006
                            7611 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 2, 2013, 1:14 am - IP Logged

                            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!

                            Click here for more of Stack47's unflinching resolve.

                            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"?

                              Avatar
                              Kentucky
                              United States
                              Member #32652
                              February 14, 2006
                              7611 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 2, 2013, 12:28 pm - IP Logged

                              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".

                                 
                                Page 15 of 38