Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 21, 2017, 2:30 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 18 of 38
56
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:41 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?

Let hope Jammy comes to a shocking realization of the error of his ways.

    Avatar
    MO
    United States
    Member #106928
    February 27, 2011
    925 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:43 am - IP Logged

    absolutely!  I have done it many times.

                                Yes Nod


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 5, 2013, 10:50 am - IP Logged

      I achieved 5+1 in a controlled environment posting my lines pre-draw and you would think Jammy would have at least a little respect for someone making an effort but instead he acted with disdain calling me a Buffoon.


        United States
        Member #116268
        September 7, 2011
        20244 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 5, 2013, 11:33 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.

        http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/2881661

          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
          mid-Ohio
          United States
          Member #9
          March 24, 2001
          19901 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 5, 2013, 12:21 pm - 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.

          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.

          What is the up side of a system player (especially one who's is scoring a few wins) to explain to you why his system is successful?  For all he knows you could be a frustrated lottery system developer looking for some ideas that work.

           * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
             
                       Evil Looking       


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 5, 2013, 3:56 pm - IP Logged

            garyo1954,

            (Did your system reject the video?)

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

            You can ask all you want but when what you ask for is IMPOSSIBLE to deliver, you will wait a very long time to receive.

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

            Which is exactly what is expected when there are more QuickPicks purchased.

            "I can prove there are no frogs in my house."

            What will you tell those you are trying to convince when they claim your house is infested with invisible frogs and noone has yet proven they don't exist?

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

            Did you watch James Randi's Caltech lrcture linked to above?  It would appear not.  Maybe you'd rather deal with text rather than videos.  Check this out...

            http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

            "

            *  Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

            *  Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

            *  Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

            *  Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

            "

            So, when you say winning lottery systems based on previous draws exist because noone has ever proven otherwise, all I can say is,,,

            Sorry, garyo1954, the Burden of Proof (onus) is on you!

            --Jimmy4164

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7344 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 5, 2013, 5:12 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

              "explaining to me and others how annoying it is to you that I'm telling you things you ALREADY KNOW?  "

              What is the point of telling someone who watched the Superbowl the Baltimore Ravens won the game?

              "As for identities - you go to great lengths to try to convince others that I'm NOT a mathematician"

              Your probabilities are basic 8th grade, but you look for a complex formula written by a known mathematician and try to pawn them off as if they were yours. And you even include yourself along with their names; speaking of delusions of grandeur.

              "If my background is important, why isn't yours?"

              Because your mathematical background is plagiarized. You may have convinced people on other message boards, but nobody here is buying your BS.

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

               http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/sharpshooter-5730

              Now I'm sure there are skeptics among you who wonder if there really is a guy named Sharpshooter and if he really can control the dice. I can now tell you from personal experience that he certainly does exist and because I saw him in action I'll say it clearly: He is one terrific shooter. Not only did I meet Sharpshooter but I met his colleague Long Arm, another controlled shooter.

              It's a fact Catlins incredibly believes there are people who can control a dice roll. I saw people try it until the boxman or floor man told them if the dice didn't hit the back board, they will call "no roll". Is Catlin condoning breaking the rules?

              "What you are obviously compelled to discredit is the fact that PAST DRAWS HAVE NO EFFECT ON PRESENT OR FUTURE DRAWS!"

              I'd like to know where you get your facts because I know for a fact there is only a 34.3% chance none of three digits (290) from last night's PA Daily Number game will be drawn. I'm guessing you skipped school the day your 8th grade math teacher explained probabilities are not fact. You have mentioned ad nauseum the game edge is 50%, but won't discuss the possibility several players are making a profit collecting the 50% payouts. Your usual excuse it's just bad luck when highly a played number is drawn or call it extremely bad luck when one state lottery paid out 97% of their monthly pick-3 sales.

              "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!"

              It's none of your business how other people spend their money. You sounds like some of wana-be experts who never won a jackpot. Nobody care about your opinion how they should spendtheir money.


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 5, 2013, 6:47 pm - IP Logged

                Jammy can NOT comprehend that some people are winners.


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 5, 2013, 7:05 pm - IP Logged

                  Where is Boney when you really need him Jammy?


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

                    Stooges

                       Boney    Jammy   Medbrat

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7344 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 5, 2013, 7:54 pm - IP Logged

                      I achieved 5+1 in a controlled environment posting my lines pre-draw and you would think Jammy would have at least a little respect for someone making an effort but instead he acted with disdain calling me a Buffoon.

                      If you look at the results of the past 200 MM, you'll see that 28 numbers were drawn more than average (9 hits). Someone could try to empress us with their math skills by calculating the probability, but their results will basically show the same standard deviation. I don't expect anyone to say the same 28 numbers will be drawn more than average in the next 200 drawings, but some of them will.

                      Your objective was to use the most recently drawn 28 numbers and though I didn't take a count, many of the most frequently drawn number were probably in that group. We're told past drawings can't be used, but there are other statical factors showing the majority of hits of some numbers happen within four drawings of their last hit. And probably why the last 28 numbers drawn are on the plus side of standard deviation.

                      The real Buffoon in this discussion is the person who disses us for making conditional bets and then quotes Catlin who made conditional bets that Sharpshooter and Long Arm could control the outcome of a dice roll.

                        Avatar
                        Kentucky
                        United States
                        Member #32652
                        February 14, 2006
                        7344 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 5, 2013, 8:10 pm - IP Logged

                        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.

                        What is the up side of a system player (especially one who's is scoring a few wins) to explain to you why his system is successful?  For all he knows you could be a frustrated lottery system developer looking for some ideas that work.

                        Anyone who ever won a jackpot with self picks proved it can be done and whether or not their system will repeat is irrelevant to them, but it seems like it's very important for Jimmy to see. I'm betting he is too cheap to buy a system and/or too lazy to develop one so he makes silly comments like that hoping someone will give him a winning system for free.

                        Pumpi made more sense talking about a super computer that would give the winning number every drawing.

                          RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                          mid-Ohio
                          United States
                          Member #9
                          March 24, 2001
                          19901 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 5, 2013, 8:32 pm - IP Logged

                          Did anyone else notice that Tuesday's MM numbers 07/02/13 - 36 42 51 52 53 +40 had the same size gaps in the same order as on Tuesday 10/26/10 - 15 21 30 31 32 +26

                          Some players refer to this as delta (6-9-1-1).  Ever wonder how many times that happens?

                           * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                             
                                       Evil Looking       

                            garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                            Dallas, Texas
                            United States
                            Member #4549
                            May 2, 2004
                            1838 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 5, 2013, 8:51 pm - IP Logged

                            garyo1954,

                            (Did your system reject the video?)

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

                            You can ask all you want but when what you ask for is IMPOSSIBLE to deliver, you will wait a very long time to receive.

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

                            Which is exactly what is expected when there are more QuickPicks purchased.

                            "I can prove there are no frogs in my house."

                            What will you tell those you are trying to convince when they claim your house is infested with invisible frogs and noone has yet proven they don't exist?

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

                            Did you watch James Randi's Caltech lrcture linked to above?  It would appear not.  Maybe you'd rather deal with text rather than videos.  Check this out...

                            http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

                            "

                            *  Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

                            *  Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

                            *  Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

                            *  Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

                            "

                            So, when you say winning lottery systems based on previous draws exist because noone has ever proven otherwise, all I can say is,,,

                            Sorry, garyo1954, the Burden of Proof (onus) is on you!

                            --Jimmy4164

                            Jimmy4164,

                            Thank you!

                            That you can't provide the proof is all we needed to hear. Everyone knew and finally you have manned up to admit it. The Leprechauns are dancing an Irish jig on the countertop!!!

                            You're making progress with the English language. Next year, when you get to third grade, you will learn things like "can" and "can't."

                            Interesting you admit more losing QPs result from more QPs sold, but can't see the double edge sword that more winning QPs result from more QPS sold. Does this compute?

                            The Bigfoot reading over my shoulder laughs that you consider James Randi philosophical. Although Mr. Randi is quite the exposer of magic tricks, sleight of hand, etc., with some challenge to the paranormal; I don't know, and have never heard, anyone speak of him as a philosopher. The times I observed his explanations on how a particlular trick or scheme was accomplished, he pretexted his explanation with "this is one way of doing it," or, "it can be done like this."

                            There are those who say Mr. Randi's $1 Million dollar paranormal challenge only remained unpaid because, like you, he insisted the evidence fit his methods, yet, he was not capable of duplicating or disproving the evidence offered. Needless to point out but it was to his advantage to claim you can't prove a negative when he had $1 Million dollars to lose should someone offer proof he couldn't refute, duplicate, or disprove, as some say happened. Relying on the statement ghosts and UFOS have never been proven so there is an alternative solution was the loophole in the challenge. 

                            Looking at the link and seeing "religion.txt" says all I  need to know. Trolls all over the internet have used the same argument for years when challenged to "prove there is no God." Like you, they lean on, "can't prove a negative."

                            Notice carefully that statement is a negative in itself, and since you "can't prove a negative," it means you can't prove that statement (is true) either. Would that mean you can't prove any statement containing a negative connotation? 

                            2 plus 2 does not equal 4. Prove me wrong.

                            At one time "can't prove a negative" was merely a guffaw stemming from the challenge to prove a negative number. In no way was it meant to include disproving (another fine negative which can't be proved) green Squees lounging on your sofa, or purple and orange striped Kunkuns snacking on the carrots in the garden. Like many guffaws, it evolved into some over the top hook.

                            1+1 does not equal 2. Prove me wrong.

                            Now having had a long discussion with the polka-dot aliens living in the microwave, and a followup with the Venusian dust balls under the stairs, the consensus is: You have made a statement as a matter of fact, therefore you should show proof. Had you offered your opinion or stated "Don Caitlen believes...," I doubt we'd be having this far reaching discussion.

                            We understand that graduating second grade leaves you with limited reading skills, which limits your ability to comprehend this thread but that's life in the fast lane, so to speak. One day we should go fishing in the Chanthonian River on Mars where we can have a nice relaxing conversation dealing with all things known and unknown. I'll pack the zoloft, paxil, klonapin, and citrolopram for you. 

                            Obviously, not one of the 3287 Petrizoids snoozing under the guest bed has been able to locate where I "say winning lottery systems based on previous draws exist." Refresh our memory. 

                            Baby steps Jimmininny. Now that you have admitted that it is IMPOSSIBLE to show proof of what you stated, you are one small step from admitting it might be possible to construct a system that allows a person to win at lottery. 

                            Borrowing from your religious theme, like the pastor says on Sunday, "Please, please, please, won't you take that small step?"

                            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 #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 6, 2013, 1:14 am - IP Logged

                              garyo1954,

                              Before proceeding, it would help considerably if you would summarize and tell us what it is, precisely, you feel YOU have proven with your "far reaching discussion" above. 

                              --Jimmy4164

                                 
                                Page 18 of 38