Welcome Guest
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
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

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!"

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!!!

When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength”.

-Arnold (Ahnald) Schwarzenegger-

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

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 *

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.

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.

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"?

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

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

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

"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.