Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 18, 2017, 5:17 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 3 years ago by sflottolover.

Page 19 of 38
56
PrintE-mailLink
garyo1954's avatar - garyo
Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1831 Posts
Online
Posted: July 6, 2013, 2:28 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

Jimmy4164,

Here are the CliffNotes for your review:

"What I clearly know and understand better than you is you can NOT BEAT the odds by looking back at past draws for guidance during your selection process."  - Jimmy4164 3July 2:14PM

"What you are obviously compelled to discredit is the fact that PAST DRAWS HAVE NO EFFECT ON PRESENT OR FUTURE DRAWS!" - Jimmy4164 4July 9:36AM

"How about posting your proof that past draws have no effect on  present or future draws?" - garyo1954 Yesterday 1:38AM

"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." - Jimmy4164 Yesterday 3:56PM

Notice carefully you said "IMPOSSIBLE to deliver."  That is an admission that you have no proof, if ever there was one.

Capiche? Comprende? Comprendre? Verstehen? Wakarimasu ka?

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, 3:17 am - IP Logged

    garyo1954,

    All you are doing here is stating truisms.  Everyone knows there is no way to prove the NON-existence of a winning lottery selection method, no more than it is possible to prove the NON-existence of invisible frogs in your house.  I am asserting that no such system exists AND that there is no proof for this assertion.  You, on the other hand, believe at least one winning system does exist.  Consequently, the Burden Of Proof is on YOU  to prove that one DOES exist!  I believe you understand your obligation quite well.

    --Jimmy4164

      garyo1954's avatar - garyo
      Dallas, Texas
      United States
      Member #4549
      May 2, 2004
      1831 Posts
      Online
      Posted: July 6, 2013, 4:17 am - IP Logged

      garyo1954,

      All you are doing here is stating truisms.  Everyone knows there is no way to prove the NON-existence of a winning lottery selection method, no more than it is possible to prove the NON-existence of invisible frogs in your house.  I am asserting that no such system exists AND that there is no proof for this assertion.  You, on the other hand, believe at least one winning system does exist.  Consequently, the Burden Of Proof is on YOU  to prove that one DOES exist!  I believe you understand your obligation quite well.

      --Jimmy4164

      Jimmininny4164,

      You've stated it is a fact. If it is a fact, then you must have proof. And the burden is on you. 

      My belief is not a matter in question since what I believe is nothing more than opinion. But bad assumptions seem to be your forte. So kindly post where I made my opinion, which you have stated in error, known to you.

      Do you know the difference between FACT and OPINION? Not just that one is red and starts with F and the other green and starts with O.

      To say, "Since it doesn't exist I can't prove it doesn't exist" is as disgusting as trying to cheat at pattycake with a three year. Do you do that too?

      Simply stated: If "EVERYONE knows there is no way to prove the NON-existence of a {insert THING here}...," it is the scientific conclusion that it may exist. 

      P. S. I'd suggest a thermal imaging camera to find your invisible frogs.   

      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!"

        Greenfox's avatar - IMAG01562
        Burnsville
        United States
        Member #107244
        March 4, 2011
        853 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 6, 2013, 4:32 am - IP Logged

        Ever saw invisible frogs thru a thermal imaging camera? It's the wildest thing.

        Best $1.50 I ever spent. Them little suckers can move.

        You look, and there not there, then look again, and there they are. It's crazy.

        You can't steal second and keep your foot on FIRST!!!

        “Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths.
        When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

        -Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

          WIN  D's avatar - q05Q0
          Stone Mountain*Georgia
          United States
          Member #828
          November 2, 2002
          10491 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 6, 2013, 9:49 am - IP Logged

          garyo1954,

          All you are doing here is stating truisms.  Everyone knows there is no way to prove the NON-existence of a winning lottery selection method, no more than it is possible to prove the NON-existence of invisible frogs in your house.  I am asserting that no such system exists AND that there is no proof for this assertion.  You, on the other hand, believe at least one winning system does exist.  Consequently, the Burden Of Proof is on YOU  to prove that one DOES exist!  I believe you understand your obligation quite well.

          --Jimmy4164

           First...... Jimmy4164,

           

           What would qualify as a "winning lottery selection method" ?

                                 What per cent of this  picking success method would qualify as winning in your opinion ?  51% ?  What ?

           

           

          The only real failure .....is the failure to try.                               

                                        Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much. 

                                        Odds never change .....but probability does. 

                                                                                                 Win d    

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19897 Posts
            Online
            Posted: July 6, 2013, 11:04 am - IP Logged

             First...... Jimmy4164,

             

             What would qualify as a "winning lottery selection method" ?

                                   What per cent of this  picking success method would qualify as winning in your opinion ?  51% ?  What ?

            What would qualify as a  "winning lottery selection method" ?

            Probably depend on the type of game more than anything. For a jackpot style of game, winning once would put a player ahead for life.  Brad Duke used a system to win his PB jackpot and he hasn't won another one since but I don't think anyone would call his system a loser if he never won again.

            Regardless of the game, your system got to eventually win back more than you spend to be called a winner.

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

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7342 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 6, 2013, 12:04 pm - IP Logged

              Jimmininny4164,

              You've stated it is a fact. If it is a fact, then you must have proof. And the burden is on you. 

              My belief is not a matter in question since what I believe is nothing more than opinion. But bad assumptions seem to be your forte. So kindly post where I made my opinion, which you have stated in error, known to you.

              Do you know the difference between FACT and OPINION? Not just that one is red and starts with F and the other green and starts with O.

              To say, "Since it doesn't exist I can't prove it doesn't exist" is as disgusting as trying to cheat at pattycake with a three year. Do you do that too?

              Simply stated: If "EVERYONE knows there is no way to prove the NON-existence of a {insert THING here}...," it is the scientific conclusion that it may exist. 

              P. S. I'd suggest a thermal imaging camera to find your invisible frogs.   

              He states lots of things as fact and never backs them up.

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

              Jimmy has used only the negative comments from Catlin and others and probably why when I mention Catlin's opinion on the tossing dice, he claimed I dishonestly misquoted Catlin. If these guys truly are consultants to the casino industry, they would be cutting their own throats by writing all negative articles about gaming. If gambing is as one sided as Jimmy wants us to believe, all the experts including Catlin would be out of a job.

              He likes to accuse others of being snake oil salesmen and con men, but all the evidence suggests Jimmy is the real con man.


                United States
                Member #116268
                September 7, 2011
                20244 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 6, 2013, 12:12 pm - IP Logged

                Jimmininny4164,

                You've stated it is a fact. If it is a fact, then you must have proof. And the burden is on you. 

                My belief is not a matter in question since what I believe is nothing more than opinion. But bad assumptions seem to be your forte. So kindly post where I made my opinion, which you have stated in error, known to you.

                Do you know the difference between FACT and OPINION? Not just that one is red and starts with F and the other green and starts with O.

                To say, "Since it doesn't exist I can't prove it doesn't exist" is as disgusting as trying to cheat at pattycake with a three year. Do you do that too?

                Simply stated: If "EVERYONE knows there is no way to prove the NON-existence of a {insert THING here}...," it is the scientific conclusion that it may exist. 

                P. S. I'd suggest a thermal imaging camera to find your invisible frogs.   

                No worries Gary, Jammy is very skilled at shifting the burden of responsibility away from himself and onto others as a means of hiding from the truth and pretending that he is never wrong. 

                Some people like Jammy cling to the fallacy of the NON-existence of a God by walking around saying, can you prove there is one? Can you prove there is one? Can you prove there is one? without realizing that the proof is all around them. All they needs to do is open their eyes and look.


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 6, 2013, 8:05 pm - IP Logged

                  He states lots of things as fact and never backs them up.

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

                  Jimmy has used only the negative comments from Catlin and others and probably why when I mention Catlin's opinion on the tossing dice, he claimed I dishonestly misquoted Catlin. If these guys truly are consultants to the casino industry, they would be cutting their own throats by writing all negative articles about gaming. If gambing is as one sided as Jimmy wants us to believe, all the experts including Catlin would be out of a job.

                  He likes to accuse others of being snake oil salesmen and con men, but all the evidence suggests Jimmy is the real con man.

                  I Agree! Jammy is not anyone's consultant and if he were a "mathematician" he would be giving consideration to the possibility of "reduced randomness" http://gat.anastasios-tampakis.net/resources/ 


                    United States
                    Member #124493
                    March 14, 2012
                    7023 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: July 7, 2013, 3:15 am - IP Logged

                    He states lots of things as fact and never backs them up.

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

                    Jimmy has used only the negative comments from Catlin and others and probably why when I mention Catlin's opinion on the tossing dice, he claimed I dishonestly misquoted Catlin. If these guys truly are consultants to the casino industry, they would be cutting their own throats by writing all negative articles about gaming. If gambing is as one sided as Jimmy wants us to believe, all the experts including Catlin would be out of a job.

                    He likes to accuse others of being snake oil salesmen and con men, but all the evidence suggests Jimmy is the real con man.

                    I dont think Jimmy is a con man.

                    He is more like a latter day saint on steroids.

                      WIN  D's avatar - q05Q0
                      Stone Mountain*Georgia
                      United States
                      Member #828
                      November 2, 2002
                      10491 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 7, 2013, 12:11 pm - IP Logged

                       So, we are all(with opposable thumbs)...... agreed that the correct answers to the Posted question of:

                                                              "  Can math and logic improve chances of winning a jackpot"?  Thinking of...

                       

                       correct answers so far are:

                           YES, of course, correct, certainly....obviously...and it's already been proven with math and logic

                       

                       

                       

                      The only real failure .....is the failure to try.                               

                                                    Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much. 

                                                    Odds never change .....but probability does. 

                                                                                                             Win d    


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 7, 2013, 12:21 pm - IP Logged

                        The believers have proven it, the unbelievers are scoffers.


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 7, 2013, 12:59 pm - IP Logged

                          The believers have proven it, the unbelievers are scoffers.

                          garyo1954 says,

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

                          But when presented with the possibility he may be overlooking "invisible" frogs, he says,

                          "I'd suggest a thermal imaging camera to find your invisible frogs."

                          First of all, if invisible frogs ARE found in garyo1954's house, they would be HIS frogs, not mine, and his claim would be proven FALSE.  Secondly, if such frogs are NOT found, the searcher can claim garyo1954's invisible frogs are from another galaxy and are immune to our earthly detection methods. And so on, ad infinitum If garyo1954 were a reasonable and logical person, he would see the analogy between his claim that no frogs exist in his house and mine that no systems exist that predict future lottery draws from past ones.  But garyo1954 is not a reasonable and logical person.

                          WIN D claims systems have "already been proven with math and logic," without presenting evidence to support his claim.

                          RJOh says, "What is the up side of a system player (especially one who's is scoring a few wins) to explain to you[Jimmy4164] why his system is successful?  For all he knows you could be a frustrated lottery system developer looking for some ideas that work."

                          This conjecture, which appears with some regularity here in rebuttals to my posts, is one of the most profound examples of the insidious nature of innumeracy and the depths to which it can invade someone's thinking.  RJOh is so convinced that his winnings in Ohio are the result of his system that he can't conceive of the possibility that anyone would have no need or desire to learn its details.  I have none.

                          Dream on people...

                          --Jimmy4164

                          P.S.  https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174

                            WIN  D's avatar - q05Q0
                            Stone Mountain*Georgia
                            United States
                            Member #828
                            November 2, 2002
                            10491 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 7, 2013, 1:35 pm - IP Logged

                            The believers have proven it, the unbelievers are scoffers.

                              Ronnie .....isn't there something a couple of levels below ....or above a simple "scoffer?"   Something more intense perhaps? LOL 

                             

                              Actually, it's a little scary when someone as highly verbal, well read, and obviously bright takes such a disturbed ...intractable position on math and logic.(social studies majors)

                             

                              Such a person may have a dark secret nagging them. They are a victim. They're a victim of their own visions.

                             Perhaps they had a shock one day. A brief moment of clarity....and saw something that made sense but disturbed them and their notions deeply. That fleeting moment of clarity has been haunting them ever since. Now, they search endlessly to end this torment. 

                              In reality they are looking for .......or even begging for validation of that experience. It's the fear that moment of logic and clarity will become their NEW reality. 

                             It's what makes them so angry and "scoffing".  The closer they get to this new sustained clarity .....the more piissed off they become.  LOL 

                             

                             

                            The only real failure .....is the failure to try.                               

                                                          Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much. 

                                                          Odds never change .....but probability does. 

                                                                                                                   Win d    

                              Avatar
                              Kentucky
                              United States
                              Member #32652
                              February 14, 2006
                              7342 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 7, 2013, 2:38 pm - IP Logged

                              garyo1954 says,

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

                              But when presented with the possibility he may be overlooking "invisible" frogs, he says,

                              "I'd suggest a thermal imaging camera to find your invisible frogs."

                              First of all, if invisible frogs ARE found in garyo1954's house, they would be HIS frogs, not mine, and his claim would be proven FALSE.  Secondly, if such frogs are NOT found, the searcher can claim garyo1954's invisible frogs are from another galaxy and are immune to our earthly detection methods. And so on, ad infinitum If garyo1954 were a reasonable and logical person, he would see the analogy between his claim that no frogs exist in his house and mine that no systems exist that predict future lottery draws from past ones.  But garyo1954 is not a reasonable and logical person.

                              WIN D claims systems have "already been proven with math and logic," without presenting evidence to support his claim.

                              RJOh says, "What is the up side of a system player (especially one who's is scoring a few wins) to explain to you[Jimmy4164] why his system is successful?  For all he knows you could be a frustrated lottery system developer looking for some ideas that work."

                              This conjecture, which appears with some regularity here in rebuttals to my posts, is one of the most profound examples of the insidious nature of innumeracy and the depths to which it can invade someone's thinking.  RJOh is so convinced that his winnings in Ohio are the result of his system that he can't conceive of the possibility that anyone would have no need or desire to learn its details.  I have none.

                              Dream on people...

                              --Jimmy4164

                              P.S.  https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174

                              "RJOh is so convinced that his winnings in Ohio are the result of his system that he can't conceive of the possibility that anyone would have no need or desire to learn its details."

                              Did you fall down, crack you head, and are you having problems focusing?

                              There are only two choices when purchasing lottery tickets; either pick the number or purchase QPs. When a self pick wins the jackpot, they are always asked how they decided on those numbers. If the winner says they were a combination of birthdays and other dates or years significant them, then you would be somewhat correct.

                              RJ's hit was based by observation of the types of numbers that are generally drawn. He is also very open on methods and very clear on the fact his system is designed to play less than 20 lines per drawing. Ronnie described his method in detail and proved a jackpot could be won using under 5000 lines. The fact that RJ and Ronnie had several responses proves your claim "anyone would have no need or desire to learn its details." is blatantly false.

                              "WIN D claims systems have " already been proven with math and logic," without presenting evidence to support his claim."

                              It was highly documented Brad Duke used a system to win a $220 million PB jackpot in 2005 and discussed on LP last year.

                              http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/244812

                              "How to choose my lottery numbers started through a trial and error process. I just started playing number games with myself about how to capture the most diverse numbers. Then I looked at the most recent Powerball numbers over the last six months and took the set of 15 numbers that were most commonly coming up. My Powerball numbers were going to be those 15. So I starting messing around with it, and my number games got a little more complex and a little bigger. I was starting to win smaller amounts like $150 and $500." ---- Brad Duke

                              Ronnie proved Duke's system wasn't a fluke when his similar system recently matched all 5 numbers plus the bonus number. I sincerely hope the injured part of you brain that is used for logic and common sense will heal quickly because you last few posts make no sense and your conclusions are blatantly false.

                              Catlin not only claimed a craps shooter can control the outcome, he said he witnessed it. Maybe when you're feeling better you can explain why Catlin was playing craps when he is positive games of chance can't be beaten.

                              "Dream on people..."

                              You should have reached that conclusion the first day clicked on a link to LP. It took you three years to figure that out yet your still lecturing us on innumeracy. LOL

                                 
                                Page 19 of 38