Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 20, 2017, 5:13 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 22 of 38
56
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 20, 2013, 8:46 pm - IP Logged

I almost emailed Don Catlin asking if he knew that Jimmy was misquoting him on LP. Catlin isn't anti-gambling or anti-lottery and gives almost the same advice as Thrifty. The only logic necessary for winning a jackpot is cutting in line buying a ticket.

Stack47 says "Catlin isn't anti-gambling or anti-lottery and gives almost the same advice as Thrifty."  But if you read what Don Catlin has to say about the lottery in his own words, you'll get quite a different message.  Click here to see what I mean...

http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/another-lottery-question-58087

"...the interviewer and writer was someone named Beth Shapouri. Her article appeared in the May 1 edition of Woman's World. Ms. Shapouri did accurately report what I said although certainly not all of what I said. What she didn't report is that I told her state lotteries are poor wagers and that I don't play them."

Stack47 also claims he taught Don Catlin how to play Craps, but yet seems reluctant to email him.

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/258205/3168858

Stack47 can reach Don Catlin at 711cat@comcast.net .

Who or what is this Stack47 "character," and where does he get his flawed information?

--Jimmy4164

    Avatar
    Kentucky
    United States
    Member #32652
    February 14, 2006
    7344 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 21, 2013, 12:45 pm - IP Logged

    Stack47 says "Catlin isn't anti-gambling or anti-lottery and gives almost the same advice as Thrifty."  But if you read what Don Catlin has to say about the lottery in his own words, you'll get quite a different message.  Click here to see what I mean...

    http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/another-lottery-question-58087

    "...the interviewer and writer was someone named Beth Shapouri. Her article appeared in the May 1 edition of Woman's World. Ms. Shapouri did accurately report what I said although certainly not all of what I said. What she didn't report is that I told her state lotteries are poor wagers and that I don't play them."

    Stack47 also claims he taught Don Catlin how to play Craps, but yet seems reluctant to email him.

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/258205/3168858

    Stack47 can reach Don Catlin at 711cat@comcast.net .

    Who or what is this Stack47 "character," and where does he get his flawed information?

    --Jimmy4164

    You forgot that I mentioned that you only post Catlin's negative remarks so again you're just showing one remark that only somewhat shows his opinion. I don't think Catlin is a member of LP, is posting his opinions on lottery games here, and if he was I doubt he would debate whether or not Gloria made an excellent $2 bet on PB.

    You really ought to stick with posting your own silly opinions and stop misquoting people like Don Catlin.

    Oh, and by the way, Catlin's email address is at the botton of his Casino City Times articles.


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 21, 2013, 12:48 pm - IP Logged

      You forgot that I mentioned that you only post Catlin's negative remarks so again you're just showing one remark that only somewhat shows his opinion. I don't think Catlin is a member of LP, is posting his opinions on lottery games here, and if he was I doubt he would debate whether or not Gloria made an excellent $2 bet on PB.

      You really ought to stick with posting your own silly opinions and stop misquoting people like Don Catlin.

      Oh, and by the way, Catlin's email address is at the botton of his Casino City Times articles.

      Thanks for the accurate info Stack.

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7344 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 21, 2013, 2:09 pm - IP Logged

        Thanks for the accurate info Stack.

        It's really simple enough to understand this topic and the idea is to discuss using logic and math to improve anyone's chance of winning of a jackpot. We know for a fact the logic of cutting in line was used to win a jackpot so their should be no argument against that logic winning a jackpot.

        Jimmy can't comprehend the difference between "improving and guaranteeing chances" and usually ignores it with his boring lectures. We're talking about winning multi-million jackpots where any logic and any math only needs to work once.

        By now Jimmy ought to know the majority of us don't expect to win ever time we buy a lottery ticket and most of us are just taking a chance regardless of the odds. I can't see any logically reason how Jimmy's opinions or the opinions he gets from articles prevented Gloria from winning a jackpot or will prevent any of us from winning one either.


          United States
          Member #116268
          September 7, 2011
          20244 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 22, 2013, 11:06 am - IP Logged

          It's really simple enough to understand this topic and the idea is to discuss using logic and math to improve anyone's chance of winning of a jackpot. We know for a fact the logic of cutting in line was used to win a jackpot so their should be no argument against that logic winning a jackpot.

          Jimmy can't comprehend the difference between "improving and guaranteeing chances" and usually ignores it with his boring lectures. We're talking about winning multi-million jackpots where any logic and any math only needs to work once.

          By now Jimmy ought to know the majority of us don't expect to win ever time we buy a lottery ticket and most of us are just taking a chance regardless of the odds. I can't see any logically reason how Jimmy's opinions or the opinions he gets from articles prevented Gloria from winning a jackpot or will prevent any of us from winning one either.

          I Agree! Any small improvement in odds is BETTER than no improvement at all.


            United States
            Member #116268
            September 7, 2011
            20244 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 22, 2013, 11:54 am - IP Logged

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7344 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 22, 2013, 12:24 pm - IP Logged

              I Agree! Any small improvement in odds is BETTER than no improvement at all.

              I've never saw anyone this obsessed arguing against better ways to play lottery games; especially where 99.9% of the members are looking for better ways to play lottery games.

                Greenfox's avatar - IMAG01562
                Burnsville
                United States
                Member #107244
                March 4, 2011
                853 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 22, 2013, 1:53 pm - IP Logged

                http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/another-lottery-question-58087

                 

                "Well Tim, I'm not sure how you go about utilizing this information but it really doesn't matter. Implicit in your question is an assumption that past results influence future behavior. Sometimes, as in Blackjack, this is true. However state lotteries spend a great deal of effort and money to ensure that each draw is independent of previous draws. Thus, I really can't address your question."

                 

                Sounds like a double standard to me. So does that mean that the state lotteries spend a lot of time and money to make sure the games are independent from one another, or they spend a lot of time and money just to make sure?

                 

                "...the interviewer and writer was someone named Beth Shapouri. Her article appeared in the May 1 edition of Woman's World. Ms. Shapouri did accurately report what I said although certainly not all of what I said. What she didn't report is that I told her state lotteries are poor wagers and that I don't play them."

                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-


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 23, 2013, 11:05 am - IP Logged

                  http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/another-lottery-question-58087

                   

                  "Well Tim, I'm not sure how you go about utilizing this information but it really doesn't matter. Implicit in your question is an assumption that past results influence future behavior. Sometimes, as in Blackjack, this is true. However state lotteries spend a great deal of effort and money to ensure that each draw is independent of previous draws. Thus, I really can't address your question."

                   

                  Sounds like a double standard to me. So does that mean that the state lotteries spend a lot of time and money to make sure the games are independent from one another, or they spend a lot of time and money just to make sure?

                   

                  "...the interviewer and writer was someone named Beth Shapouri. Her article appeared in the May 1 edition of Woman's World. Ms. Shapouri did accurately report what I said although certainly not all of what I said. What she didn't report is that I told her state lotteries are poor wagers and that I don't play them."

                  Seeing a pattern does not imply influence, its just another way to get BETTER ODDS on a spacific draw.

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7344 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: July 23, 2013, 1:49 pm - IP Logged

                    Seeing a pattern does not imply influence, its just another way to get BETTER ODDS on a spacific draw.

                    "state lotteries are poor wagers and that I don't play them."

                    I don't recall anyone on this thread asking if betting $1 win $9 million or $2 to win $97.1 million is a good wager. And even if someone asks, asking someone like Catlin is like asking someone who doesn't play golf what is best golf ball and clubs or asking a vegetarian the best steak house. By definition any losing bet is a poor wager even if the odds were 100 to 1 in your favor.

                    Are we suppose to be in shock and awe every time Jimmy finds an opinion against taking a chance of winning millions?

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7344 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 23, 2013, 2:30 pm - IP Logged

                      http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/another-lottery-question-58087

                       

                      "Well Tim, I'm not sure how you go about utilizing this information but it really doesn't matter. Implicit in your question is an assumption that past results influence future behavior. Sometimes, as in Blackjack, this is true. However state lotteries spend a great deal of effort and money to ensure that each draw is independent of previous draws. Thus, I really can't address your question."

                       

                      Sounds like a double standard to me. So does that mean that the state lotteries spend a lot of time and money to make sure the games are independent from one another, or they spend a lot of time and money just to make sure?

                       

                      "...the interviewer and writer was someone named Beth Shapouri. Her article appeared in the May 1 edition of Woman's World. Ms. Shapouri did accurately report what I said although certainly not all of what I said. What she didn't report is that I told her state lotteries are poor wagers and that I don't play them."

                      "So does that mean that the state lotteries spend a lot of time and money to make sure the games are independent from one another, or they spend a lot of time and money just to make sure?"

                      By spending that extra time, the lotteries are doing whatever they can to insure a fair drawing where every possibility has an equal chance of being the outcome. Simply put, one or more of the three digits drawn in the last drawing have the same equal chance of being drawn in the next drawing as any of the seven digits not drawn. The village idiot could say just as profoundly the last drawing has no direct mechanical influence on the next drawing, but I would expect a professor of mathematics to know there is a 65.7% chance one of those three digits from the last drawing will repeat.

                      While the last drawing should have no mechanical influence, there is a mathematical influence. For a math professor to say there is no influence at all is very stupid statement.

                        WIN  D's avatar - q05Q0
                        Stone Mountain*Georgia
                        United States
                        Member #828
                        November 2, 2002
                        10491 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 23, 2013, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

                        "So does that mean that the state lotteries spend a lot of time and money to make sure the games are independent from one another, or they spend a lot of time and money just to make sure?"

                        By spending that extra time, the lotteries are doing whatever they can to insure a fair drawing where every possibility has an equal chance of being the outcome. Simply put, one or more of the three digits drawn in the last drawing have the same equal chance of being drawn in the next drawing as any of the seven digits not drawn. The village idiot could say just as profoundly the last drawing has no direct mechanical influence on the next drawing, but I would expect a professor of mathematics to know there is a 65.7% chance one of those three digits from the last drawing will repeat.

                        While the last drawing should have no mechanical influence, there is a mathematical influence. For a math professor to say there is no influence at all is very stupid statement.

                        "By spending that extra time, the lotteries are doing whatever they can to insure a fair drawing where every possibility has an equal chance of being the outcome. Simply put, one or more of the three digits drawn in the last drawing have the same equal chance of being drawn in the next drawing as any of the seven digits not drawn. The village idiot could say just as profoundly the last drawing has no direct mechanical influence on the next drawing, but I would expect a professor of mathematics to know there is a 65.7% chance one of those three digits from the last drawing will repeat." 

                         

                           Big Smile

                          OK.... for the record I do believe in using Math and Logic aiding in the winning of lotteries. 

                           .........but I don't believe in using presumptions or what ever it's called. Presumptions such as the 66% chance 1 of 3 digits will repeat form the previous draw.

                            I believe that any .....any 3 digits have that same chance ....even if we use the draw before last or even the draw 3 draws back ...or even 18 draws back. 

                         

                                   Anytime you use 66 % of the chart and use any 3 digits as your total play potentials.....you will be right 66.7 per cent of the time no matter where those 3 digits came from. 

                             Not that it isn't a very useful memory tool. 

                              Another example:

                             I came up with teaching tool years ago called ...." The Old Man's Zero."   Boy, there's a presumption for ya. The truth behind that story was that ODDS were actually at the center of it....nothing else. It was just a quick way to download some basic odds tools .....in a memorable way.

                             Old Man's Zero rule says.... Anytime you see a zero in a line of past draws...... you will find a digit 3,,or 6 around it. Either in  ...the draw before the zero...the day of the draw.......or almost certainly the day after. The useful and profitable part of that story is..... when a zero hits without the 3,,or 6 around it. Then we have a 90% chance that a zero is about to hit the Next Draw

                                                Odds (math) are at the center of virtually every useful tool in these games......the rest of the time it's Probability. 

                                                                                         " Probability is where math meets .....real life". 

                         

                         

                        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
                          19900 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 23, 2013, 5:01 pm - IP Logged

                          I'm becoming confused, this thread started out asking about logic and math being used to win a jackpot and now it sounds like the posts are about pick3 games.  Does anyone consider getting a $50 box hit or a straight  for $500 hitting a jackpot?

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

                            WIN  D's avatar - q05Q0
                            Stone Mountain*Georgia
                            United States
                            Member #828
                            November 2, 2002
                            10491 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 23, 2013, 5:20 pm - IP Logged

                             Hi RJOH !

                               After all these years ......we all know where your heart is that's for sure.

                             I have won enough in one or more "Actions" of playing Pick 3 traps to qualify for what the average player would consider a "jackpot."  Some ...including me, believe that 500 smackers for a buck ......a good jackpot.  LOL 

                              You are in a real nest of Pick 3'ers you know.

                              My belief is... if you can't math and logic through that little game .....you will never do it on the "Big" ones.

                              Seriously, if the question is for one game ....it's true for all the games .....all the way ! 

                               Pick 3 is a gateway drug for those "Hard Games". LOL

                             

                              P.S. 

                                 In the last couple of years .....there were some very complex techniques developed ....and are used in P3 now.  I think you would find some of them extremely interesting and useful in the big games.

                             

                             

                            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    

                              bobby623's avatar - abstract
                              San Angelo, Texas
                              United States
                              Member #1097
                              January 31, 2003
                              1405 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 23, 2013, 6:54 pm - IP Logged

                              Apparently, many lottery players believe with all their money that basic mathematics has a role
                              in lottery play.

                              Adding, using so-called lottery math, current draw results to past results is really popular here.
                              Computing roots, using mirrors, sums, adding/subtracting 1,  and other methods abound.
                              Those who are pushing such ideas swear they are winning big and frequently.
                              For what  it's worth, I don't think that kind of math is very useful over the long haul.
                              A recent claim by a Pick 4 player that he is 'winning thousands' every month using mathematics just doesn't
                              sound right.
                              But, too each his own.

                              I'm not a mathematician in any shape or form, so who am I to judge.
                              Maybe I should sit back and read what the learned and distinguished folks here have to say.
                              It's just unfortunate that what I'm reading lends very little to the task of winning.

                              Odds, percentages, probability, consensus, etc, have a role, to be sure, but I've yet to read
                              a post that showed me how to use such concepts to my advantage.

                              In fact, the posts strongly suggest that playing the lottery is basically a lost cause and should be
                              avoided.

                              Well, the opinions for or against lottery play are basically mute.
                              The fact is that people are  playing and winning.

                              But, back to the original question.

                              Mine is that believing mathematics has a role in lottery games is the same as believing that winning numbers are predictable.

                              I'll change my mind when someone offers me hard, indisputable proof that winning numbers can
                              be consistently and accurately known in advance.

                              What I do believe is that every game played in a box, or a matrix, generates inherent 'trend lines' that can be used to a players advantage.

                              What are 'trend lines' you might be asking.

                              Unfortunately, I'm not really smart enough to provide a good answer.

                              All I can say is that they exist.

                              And how do I know it?

                              Well, basically, by breaking a lottery game down into small pieces, setting up reliable
                              and useful tracking charts, and paying attention to the ebb and flow of the resulting data.

                              When I set down to choose numbers to play, I have a standard ritual that underlines
                              all of the useful trends that I've identified for a particular game.

                              The problem is that I'm often faced with multiple, sometimes conflicting, trend lines.
                              Making the right choices usually results in a win of some magnitude.
                              Wrong choices don't pay.
                              There are no prediction schemes, at least, none that I know how to develop.
                              It's mostly experience and intuition.
                              Some times it's just making 'wild' guesses that often prove to be correct.

                              Here is an example of trend lines.

                              Given: BCRA (the last 4 elements in a very long alphabetical trend string)
                              The task is to select the correct letter using data in a related numerical trend string.
                              Analysis of the numerical trend string suggests '2' is the correct choice.
                              Question. Do I count right to left and get an 'R'
                              Or, do I count left to right to get a 'C.'
                              Either letter, using other trend strings, will produce a lottery number that may or
                              may not be in the winning combination.

                              Analysis to determine which count direction is the correct one is still underway.
                              Unfortunately, I can't do a Google search and find a program that will provide
                              answers because none exists.
                              What exist is a ton of ideas and suggestions, some in expensive lottery systems, developed
                              over the past 50 plus years. Stuff that in reality has little or no value.

                              I guess then that the answer to the question is that a majority of folks who look beyond the winning numbers
                              believe that despite the fact that nothing they have been doing has worked they
                              should nonetheless continue to go down whatever road they are traveling.

                              Trying something new and different isn't an option.
                              And that's an unfortunate answer to the question originally posed by RJOH.

                                 
                                Page 22 of 38