Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 9:15 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 17 of 38
56
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 4, 2013, 12:42 pm - IP Logged

yimmininny4164,

With the number of links you post, that "FED" part should have made you fat by now. Pat yourself on the back for being with the in crowd who believe everything on the internet is true. 

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would threaten and can't understand why, if you were threatened, you came back. Makes no sense to me to put my health or life in that situation over something so trivial as lotteries.

It comes to mind that people who play jackpot games, Powerball and Mega-Millions, are only looking to beat the odds one time. And history is on their. Every time a person wins a jackpot, the so-called "experts" are wrong. They make the excuse. "He/She got lucky."

Of course, when one of these people win on World Poker Tour, they say, "He/She played that perfectly."

Ever notice that?

P.S. Notice it didn't take long when you were backed in the corner to toss out that old gamblers fallacy. Hope it made you feel better.

Well said Gary, people get easily offended and on a forum they feel like they can go crazy venting their anger and frustration. Jammy obviously feels afraid and threatened by some outbursts that may have occurred. I have been threaten by the same type of outbursts on numerous occasions but I refuse to be afraid and live in fear like Jammy does. Jammy lives in a world of illusions and delusions and is paranoid that those who want to help him are some sort of conspiracy type group that have purposely aligned themselves against him. 

Green laugh


    United States
    Member #116268
    September 7, 2011
    20244 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 4, 2013, 12:46 pm - IP Logged

    Ronnie316,

    If you had received the kinds of threatening messages that I received early on, you wouldn't have given up your identity as you have.  Even though you don't seem to pose a threat to anyone here, I think it was foolish to do it.  If you check out my first posts here at LP you'll find that I provided a brief bio of myself.  This is more than can be said for the posters here who view themselves as "gurus" and feel compelled to attack and try to discredit nearly everything I post because it calls their thinking into question.

    BTW, I don't think I've accused you of posting under multiple member names, but I have accused you of posting writing "FED" to you by others.  If I'm misguided about this, you could avoid confusion by annotating your posts with the persona you have chosen at the time of posting.

    If you look above at the post you replied to, and seem annoyed by, you'll find it was NOT addressed to you.

    --Jimmy4164

    p.s.  Where is all the contact info you mentioned?  I don't see it in your profile.

    Visit anytime Jammy. I like your persistence.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glCwa0EADKE

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7297 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 4, 2013, 4:01 pm - IP Logged

      Stack47,

      "Nobody cares, Jimmy. Really."

      Are you sure?

      If anyone looks above, don't you think they might notice how much YOU care? Wink

      Now, why don't you, Garyo1954, and Ronnie316 transfer some of the energy you waste trying to discredit me and other mathematicians to the task of PROVING that past lottery draws can be used to increase your chances of winning jackpots?  In other words, [try to] PROVE that the Gambler's Fallacy is not really a fallacy after all.  If you can do it, you'll become famous!

      What are you going to do if one or more of your devotees discovers who you really are, and consequently, what motivates you here?

      --Jimmy4164

      "don't you think they might notice how much YOU care?"

      If anything it doesn't take much common sense to see I'm interested in discussing lottery and gaming related topics. When we're discussing Gloria sighting, you want to lecture us on the astronomical odds against her winning the jackpot. You may think Catlin's book which begins with his observance of a long line a people waiting to buy lottery tickets interesting, but LP members are much more interested in Mindy's story about Gloria cutting in front of her in the line.

      Hasn't it every occurred to you the large number of members discussing what they will do after winning a jackpot, don't care or find the odds against winning irrelevant?

      "transfer some of the energy you waste trying to discredit me and other mathematicians"

      And again I must point out that you suffer from delusions of grandeur by including yourself with "other mathematicians". We're not really discrediting your remarks, just saying in this type of format the odds are known by the majority and the majority of posters are not interested in your lectures. We already know what to expect by purchasing five $1 QPs for the next five years and frankly I can't understand why you're offended when someone points out the obvious and tells you real lottery players will never bet like that.

      "What are you going to do if one or more of your devotees discovers who you really are"

      I really doubt the majority of active LP members care about who anybody really is when discussing lottery related topics. It's not necessary for me to know who you really are because I know you're playing the lottery devil's advocate. Your real life status doesn't change the fact your lectures are very boring, condescending, and show obvious signs of delusions of grandeur.


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 4, 2013, 7:40 pm - IP Logged

        Thanks for the information FEED Stack, I will be using some of that later.


          United States
          Member #93947
          July 10, 2010
          2180 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 4, 2013, 9:36 pm - IP Logged

          Stack47,

          "We're not really discrediting your remarks, just saying in this type of format the odds are known by the majority and the majority of posters are not interested in your lectures."

          If you agree with my remarks regarding the probabilities and odds for and against various events, why would you invest so much of your time and energy explaining to me and others how annoying it is to you that I'm telling you things you ALREADY KNOW?  You won't admit it but I think I know why.  You DON'T really agree with the universally accepted odds because you believe (or at least want others to believe) you can get "BETTER ODDS" by judiciously selecting your numbers using various systematic methods.  You can't have it both ways.

          As for identities - you go to great lengths to try to convince others that I'm NOT a mathematician, but claim it's of no importance what YOUR background is.  If my background is important, why isn't yours?

          You even went so far as to purposely misquote Don Catlin's recent remarks on craps.

          What you are obviously compelled to discredit is the fact that PAST DRAWS HAVE NO EFFECT ON PRESENT OR FUTURE DRAWS!  Consequently, you keep attacking my credibility and initiating false narratives to keep the focus of these threads on personalities, rather than the facts, which you can't refute.  Why?  Because if people here come to realize that lotteries are truly random and past draws are irrelevant, they will conclude that their time would be better spent on activities other than looking at draw histories, and their money would be better spent on more lottery tickets than on garbage software, books, and subscription fees alleging to help them win lottery jackpots!

          https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/258205/3146433

          --Jimmy4164

            garyo1954's avatar - garyo
            Dallas, Texas
            United States
            Member #4549
            May 2, 2004
            1665 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 5, 2013, 1:38 am - IP Logged

            As always, jimmininny4164,you do the same thing you accuse others of doing.

             

            How about posting your proof that that past draws have no affect on present ot future draws?

            Can you do that Mr Link-Another-Fail-Article?

            My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

              CajunWin4's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
              Whiskey Island
              United States
              Member #90216
              April 24, 2010
              12729 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 5, 2013, 2:05 am - IP Logged

              Stack47,

              "We're not really discrediting your remarks, just saying in this type of format the odds are known by the majority and the majority of posters are not interested in your lectures."

              If you agree with my remarks regarding the probabilities and odds for and against various events, why would you invest so much of your time and energy explaining to me and others how annoying it is to you that I'm telling you things you ALREADY KNOW?  You won't admit it but I think I know why.  You DON'T really agree with the universally accepted odds because you believe (or at least want others to believe) you can get "BETTER ODDS" by judiciously selecting your numbers using various systematic methods.  You can't have it both ways.

              As for identities - you go to great lengths to try to convince others that I'm NOT a mathematician, but claim it's of no importance what YOUR background is.  If my background is important, why isn't yours?

              You even went so far as to purposely misquote Don Catlin's recent remarks on craps.

              What you are obviously compelled to discredit is the fact that PAST DRAWS HAVE NO EFFECT ON PRESENT OR FUTURE DRAWS!  Consequently, you keep attacking my credibility and initiating false narratives to keep the focus of these threads on personalities, rather than the facts, which you can't refute.  Why?  Because if people here come to realize that lotteries are truly random and past draws are irrelevant, they will conclude that their time would be better spent on activities other than looking at draw histories, and their money would be better spent on more lottery tickets than on garbage software, books, and subscription fees alleging to help them win lottery jackpots!

              https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/258205/3146433

              --Jimmy4164

              Jimmy ,

              If past draws have no effect on future draws !

                    Explain to us ! How I'm able to Predict with using  Past Draws in Take 5 / Cash 5 /Fantasy 5 type games ?  With matches 5 out 5 , 4 out 5 , 3 out 5 and 2 out 5 matches . I've done this many times over with 4 out 5 , 3 out 5 and 2 out 5 matches posted in many threads . I even have (2) 5 out 5 Preidictions Posts in Threads .

                 I have accomplished and posted proof of this ! With Predictions posted before Draw not after . You explain to us how its not possible !


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 5, 2013, 9:47 am - IP Logged

                As always, jimmininny4164,you do the same thing you accuse others of doing.

                 

                How about posting your proof that that past draws have no affect on present ot future draws?

                Can you do that Mr Link-Another-Fail-Article?

                garyo1954,

                You've been posting here long enough to have observed that randomness provides an abundance of evidence that jackpots can be won without systematic methods.  Note, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the winners buy QuickPicks.

                And, of course, you must be aware that philosophically, and logically, the onus is on you and all the others who believe in systems to prove that they have efficacy over reasonable periods of time and at acceptable Confidence Levels.

                Sorry Garyo1954, the ball is in your court!

                Click here for the answer to your question.

                --Jimmy4164

                P.S. Look up 'metaphor' Ronnie316.


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 5, 2013, 9:47 am - IP Logged

                  I don't think Gary plays ball Jammy.


                    United States
                    Member #116268
                    September 7, 2011
                    20244 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:07 am - IP Logged

                    Are you sure Jammy? Perhaps 80% of the people buy QPs and there are 80% QP ticket winners?


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:09 am - IP Logged

                      I think Jammy is getting accustom to "hit and run" posting. Jammy lives in fear that he could be wrong.

                        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                        Dallas, Texas
                        United States
                        Member #4549
                        May 2, 2004
                        1665 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:28 am - IP Logged

                        garyo1954,

                        You've been posting here long enough to have observed that randomness provides an abundance of evidence that jackpots can be won without systematic methods.  Note, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the winners buy QuickPicks.

                        And, of course, you must be aware that philosophically, and logically, the onus is on you and all the others who believe in systems to prove that they have efficacy over reasonable periods of time and at acceptable Confidence Levels.

                        Sorry Garyo1954, the ball is in your court!

                        Click here for the answer to your question.

                        --Jimmy4164

                        P.S. Look up 'metaphor' Ronnie316.

                        Jimmy4164, maybe you dont understand how this works.

                        You made a statement. I get to ask for proof. Not the other way around.

                        We both have seen the 70% of all lottery winners play quick picks. I've got no reason to doubt that. I've also got no reason to doubt 70% of all lottery tickets purchased are quick picks. I've even bought a few. Honest. But if you hold that as true, then it follows that if 10% of all tickets were quick picks then only 10% of the winners would be quick picks.   

                        On the other hand, there are more losing quick picks than losing self picks.

                        Now people have been making predictions, right or wrong, since the Sumerians. And notice this morning the predictions board hasn't shut down? Las Vegas isn't in any danger.

                        Any I don't see that happening. Do you?

                        Your misunderstanding of predictions is your belief that they must occur on your schedule. That doesn't always happen.

                        No, Jimmy, the onus is on you to prove what you stated. If you can't prove a negative then I guess you lose.

                        P. S. I can prove there are no frogs in my house. I can prove there is not tornado about to destroy my property. Why can't you prove one can't use past draws to make present or future predictions? Could it be you don't understand a negtive statement?

                        My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:37 am - IP Logged

                          Jimmy4164, maybe you dont understand how this works.

                          You made a statement. I get to ask for proof. Not the other way around.

                          We both have seen the 70% of all lottery winners play quick picks. I've got no reason to doubt that. I've also got no reason to doubt 70% of all lottery tickets purchased are quick picks. I've even bought a few. Honest. But if you hold that as true, then it follows that if 10% of all tickets were quick picks then only 10% of the winners would be quick picks.   

                          On the other hand, there are more losing quick picks than losing self picks.

                          Now people have been making predictions, right or wrong, since the Sumerians. And notice this morning the predictions board hasn't shut down? Las Vegas isn't in any danger.

                          Any I don't see that happening. Do you?

                          Your misunderstanding of predictions is your belief that they must occur on your schedule. That doesn't always happen.

                          No, Jimmy, the onus is on you to prove what you stated. If you can't prove a negative then I guess you lose.

                          P. S. I can prove there are no frogs in my house. I can prove there is not tornado about to destroy my property. Why can't you prove one can't use past draws to make present or future predictions? Could it be you don't understand a negtive statement?

                          I Agree! I already proved that 5+1 could be achieved by choosing numbers. Jammys only responce was to come up with a simulator that selects ONE QP per draw to prove that QPs are NOT BETTER than selections.


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:38 am - IP Logged

                            Green laugh


                              United States
                              Member #116268
                              September 7, 2011
                              20244 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:40 am - IP Logged

                              Jammy lives in a terrible state of unrelenting fear. I feel sorry for Jammy. Heaven help Jammy.

                                 
                                Page 17 of 38