Texas United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jul 6, 2013
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.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
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.
Texas United States
Member #4,549
May 2, 2004
4,228 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jul 6, 2013
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.
I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain.
United States
Member #107,239
March 4, 2011
1,192 Posts
Offline
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”.
Stone Mountain*Georgia United States
Member #828
November 2, 2002
10,491 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jul 6, 2013
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.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by WIN D on Jul 6, 2013
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 every combination, just the winning ones *
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Jul 6, 2013
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 #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on Jul 6, 2013
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 #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Jul 6, 2013
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 #124,487
March 14, 2012
7,021 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Jul 6, 2013
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 #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Jul 7, 2013
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.
Stone Mountain*Georgia United States
Member #828
November 2, 2002
10,491 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Jul 7, 2013
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.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jul 7, 2013
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.
"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.
"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.