Welcome Guest
You last visited December 6, 2016, 11:05 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 30 of 38

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2013, 7:20 pm - IP Logged

"I pasted the correctly calculated odds above."

The odds are posted on the Texas Lottery website and only you know why it was necessary to calculate and show them here.

"Jackpots are paid for the extremes, so there are 2 jackpots."

If there really are two jackpots, someone is ignoring the fact one ticket can only win one jackpot and believe it or not none of the other prizes with two chances to win can't win twice either. The odds are correct on the website (1 in 2,704,156) because once the first number is drawn the opposite jackpot becomes one of the 2,704,155 losing chances.

The odds of ten lines each with a different pick-3 straight combo matching the drawing can be expressed as 10 chances out of 1000 and reduced to 1 chance out of every 100 chances. And as I said before if players feel better by expressing the odds as 100 to 1 even though there are 990 ways to lose, I won't rain on their parade. From the lottery's point of view, they know only one three digit number will be drawn and there are 990 other unplayed numbers by the player believing they improved their odds to 100 to 1.

Another way to look at reducing the odds by expressing them differently is to play 10 pick-lines using the same digit in the first digit position with each of the 10 digits in the second digit position and saying the odds are 9 to 1 by correctly guessing the first digit.

"Your payout ratio is by consequence +500/-1000 = -0.5"

That's true but when but when a player bets \$3 each on ten straight pick-3 numbers and wins, they collect \$1470, which isn't a bad payoff considering the 990 to 1 odds. And even a better payoff if they believe the odds are 100 to 1 or 9 to 1. I'm not arguing about how odds are calculated or expressed, just pointing out there are several different methods.

*edited to add Steve Player will advertise a pick-3 system where a player picks one digit, with 9 to 1 odds of winning \$500 and will sell it for \$49.99.

Way to break it down Stack, nice work as always.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 7, 2013, 8:41 pm - IP Logged

Way to break it down Stack, nice work as always.

A couple years ago there was heated discussion about lottery odds and the only real difference was how people expressed them.

I'm using Thrifty's odds and system in the PB drawings and today was the first time I bought some tickets since Gloria won. I even used Gloria's system at one of the stops though I didn't actually cut in front of someone; she was digging in her purse for money and told me to "go ahead".

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 8, 2013, 3:54 am - IP Logged

"I pasted the correctly calculated odds above."

The odds are posted on the Texas Lottery website and only you know why it was necessary to calculate and show them here.

"Jackpots are paid for the extremes, so there are 2 jackpots."

If there really are two jackpots, someone is ignoring the fact one ticket can only win one jackpot and believe it or not none of the other prizes with two chances to win can't win twice either. The odds are correct on the website (1 in 2,704,156) because once the first number is drawn the opposite jackpot becomes one of the 2,704,155 losing chances.

The odds of ten lines each with a different pick-3 straight combo matching the drawing can be expressed as 10 chances out of 1000 and reduced to 1 chance out of every 100 chances. And as I said before if players feel better by expressing the odds as 100 to 1 even though there are 990 ways to lose, I won't rain on their parade. From the lottery's point of view, they know only one three digit number will be drawn and there are 990 other unplayed numbers by the player believing they improved their odds to 100 to 1.

Another way to look at reducing the odds by expressing them differently is to play 10 pick-lines using the same digit in the first digit position with each of the 10 digits in the second digit position and saying the odds are 9 to 1 by correctly guessing the first digit.

"Your payout ratio is by consequence +500/-1000 = -0.5"

That's true but when but when a player bets \$3 each on ten straight pick-3 numbers and wins, they collect \$1470, which isn't a bad payoff considering the 990 to 1 odds. And even a better payoff if they believe the odds are 100 to 1 or 9 to 1. I'm not arguing about how odds are calculated or expressed, just pointing out there are several different methods.

*edited to add Steve Player will advertise a pick-3 system where a player picks one digit, with 9 to 1 odds of winning \$500 and will sell it for \$49.99.

The odds are posted on the Texas Lottery website and only you know why it was necessary to calculate and show them here.

You really don't want to understand.

If there really are two jackpots,

There are, stop nagging.

From the lottery's point of view, they know only one three digit number will be drawn and there are 990 other unplayed numbers by the player believing they improved their odds to 100 to 1.

The odds stay the same, I suggest that you stop drinking alcohol. The amount of money can change, not the chance.

I'm not arguing about how odds are calculated or expressed, just pointing out there are several different methods.

You get it as wrong as your English is getting bad: *edited to add Steve Player will advertise a pick-3 system where a player picks one digit, with 9 to 1 odds of winning \$500 and will sell it for \$49.99.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 9, 2013, 2:51 pm - IP Logged

The odds are posted on the Texas Lottery website and only you know why it was necessary to calculate and show them here.

You really don't want to understand.

If there really are two jackpots,

There are, stop nagging.

From the lottery's point of view, they know only one three digit number will be drawn and there are 990 other unplayed numbers by the player believing they improved their odds to 100 to 1.

The odds stay the same, I suggest that you stop drinking alcohol. The amount of money can change, not the chance.

I'm not arguing about how odds are calculated or expressed, just pointing out there are several different methods.

You get it as wrong as your English is getting bad: *edited to add Steve Player will advertise a pick-3 system where a player picks one digit, with 9 to 1 odds of winning \$500 and will sell it for \$49.99.

I said "If there really are two jackpots, someone is ignoring the fact one ticket can only win one jackpot and believe it or not none of the other prizes with two chances to win can't win twice either."

"There are, stop nagging."

Something is getting lost in the translation because the game was stopped because hundreds of individual tickets had the potential to all win ONE jackpot in any one drawing and costing the state millions. Can you mathematically prove how it possible for one ticket to win any prize twice or are you just using wooden shoe logic to say each ticket has one chance to win one of two jackpots?

"The odds stay the same, I suggest that you stop drinking alcohol. The amount of money can change, not the chance."

I don't drink, but it might be necessary to explain to a drunk when a player has ten chances out of 1000 to win and only one of those chance can win, there are still 990 other chances that can win, making the other ten chances worthless. Would it help your hangover if I said the ten chances gives a player a 1 in 10 chance of getting 100 to 1 odds?

"You get it as wrong as your English is getting bad: *edited to add Steve Player will advertise a pick-3 system where a player picks one digit, with 9 to 1 odds of winning \$500 and will sell it for \$49.99."

If you don't understand the logic behind Steve Player systems, how they are explained is irrelevant whether you think it's poor grammar or not.

It doesn't change the fact TLC created a \$2 ticket game that gave a player two incredibly long odds chances of winning one jackpot and made it simple to play eight of the chances on the bet slip or at the terminal. The problem that caused the game to closed is simple too; someone overlooked the potential of hundreds of players winning one drawing without a limit on how much they would pay out.

Previously you said "It is total nonense to play a combination odd and the other even, because it's the same."

That \$4 bet gives a player two chances to win \$500,000. Does it make more sense to bet the \$4 on all odd and all low to get four chances of winning \$250,000?

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 9, 2013, 3:07 pm - IP Logged

I said "If there really are two jackpots, someone is ignoring the fact one ticket can only win one jackpot and believe it or not none of the other prizes with two chances to win can't win twice either."

"There are, stop nagging."

Something is getting lost in the translation because the game was stopped because hundreds of individual tickets had the potential to all win ONE jackpot in any one drawing and costing the state millions. Can you mathematically prove how it possible for one ticket to win any prize twice or are you just using wooden shoe logic to say each ticket has one chance to win one of two jackpots?

"The odds stay the same, I suggest that you stop drinking alcohol. The amount of money can change, not the chance."

I don't drink, but it might be necessary to explain to a drunk when a player has ten chances out of 1000 to win and only one of those chance can win, there are still 990 other chances that can win, making the other ten chances worthless. Would it help your hangover if I said the ten chances gives a player a 1 in 10 chance of getting 100 to 1 odds?

"You get it as wrong as your English is getting bad: *edited to add Steve Player will advertise a pick-3 system where a player picks one digit, with 9 to 1 odds of winning \$500 and will sell it for \$49.99."

If you don't understand the logic behind Steve Player systems, how they are explained is irrelevant whether you think it's poor grammar or not.

It doesn't change the fact TLC created a \$2 ticket game that gave a player two incredibly long odds chances of winning one jackpot and made it simple to play eight of the chances on the bet slip or at the terminal. The problem that caused the game to closed is simple too; someone overlooked the potential of hundreds of players winning one drawing without a limit on how much they would pay out.

Previously you said "It is total nonense to play a combination odd and the other even, because it's the same."

That \$4 bet gives a player two chances to win \$500,000. Does it make more sense to bet the \$4 on all odd and all low to get four chances of winning \$250,000?

Study mathematics and you don't have to ask me! Maybe read a good book written by Nassim Taleb instead of publicity for Steve Player and Gail Howard. There are a few nice books treating risks and probability. Subscribe to a distant course, keep yourself busy.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 10, 2013, 11:40 am - 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.

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

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 10, 2013, 11:44 am - IP Logged

A couple years ago there was heated discussion about lottery odds and the only real difference was how people expressed them.

I'm using Thrifty's odds and system in the PB drawings and today was the first time I bought some tickets since Gloria won. I even used Gloria's system at one of the stops though I didn't actually cut in front of someone; she was digging in her purse for money and told me to "go ahead".

Nice work. Ive been watching for those types of opportunities too, along with playing my regulars.

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 10, 2013, 1:38 pm - IP Logged
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 10, 2013, 10:49 pm - IP Logged

Nice work. Ive been watching for those types of opportunities too, along with playing my regulars.

I should know better to get into discussions, debates, and/or arguments about odds and chances because how someone else thinks has no influence on the outcome of my bets. If they believe they have 2 or 1000 chances to win the jackpot with one ticket it's fine with me.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2013, 1:14 pm - IP Logged

I should know better to get into discussions, debates, and/or arguments about odds and chances because how someone else thinks has no influence on the outcome of my bets. If they believe they have 2 or 1000 chances to win the jackpot with one ticket it's fine with me.

The delusional and the disturbed need a place to unwind, and I think LP is their "go to" spot.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2013, 2:01 pm - IP Logged

The delusional and the disturbed need a place to unwind, and I think LP is their "go to" spot.

I was in the same type of debate with a guy at the race track who had a \$10 place ticket on the favorite that was involved with in photo finish with a long shot. He said he hoped the favorite won because the place ticket would pay more and said it would pay the same either way. My buddy asked me why I wasting my time explaining it because even though it would pay the same if the favorite won, the guy would still say "see I told you it would pay more".

I guess this is the place to discuss odds, but lately it seems there are more members who are here just to argue semantics.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
19825 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 11, 2013, 3:56 pm - IP Logged

I was in the same type of debate with a guy at the race track who had a \$10 place ticket on the favorite that was involved with in photo finish with a long shot. He said he hoped the favorite won because the place ticket would pay more and said it would pay the same either way. My buddy asked me why I wasting my time explaining it because even though it would pay the same if the favorite won, the guy would still say "see I told you it would pay more".

I guess this is the place to discuss odds, but lately it seems there are more members who are here just to argue semantics.

"I guess this is the place to discuss odds, but lately it seems there are more members who are here just to argue semantics."

I think some are here just to argue because in their world among their associates their arguments would make them look foolish.  At LP they can find an audience that will engage them or so they like to think when someone tries to make sense of the non sense they post.

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

Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2013, 4:36 am - IP Logged

CNN Money Was Forced To Take Down This Idiotic Lottery Tips Video

Jill Krasny Mar. 16, 2012, 4:03 PM 5,187 17

Yesterday, Zac Bissonnette, author of Debt-Free U and a prominent personal finance expert, launched a Twitter tirade on a highly dubious video that hit the web yesterday.

The CNN Money video featured Richard Lustig, a self-published author in Florida who's won the lottery several times.

After the video aired, his \$34.50 book—Learn How to Increase Your Chances of Winning The Lottery—shot up to #2,073 on Amazon

Here, Bissonnette debunks Lustig's advice and gives his not-so-gentle take on why CNN flubbed this one big time.

First, Lustig says to "set a lottery budget," dividing your monthly household spending by ten. He also recommends buying 10 tickets of the same game at a time since "almost every single time you'll find a winning ticket in there."

Bissonnette's take: "The budget should be zero. The lottery works randomly. Unlike poker or blackjack, there's nothing you can do to gain an advantage at this. You can't make decisions to influence the outcome." It's just like roulette—there's no game of skill.

Next, Lustig tells viewers to skip the "Quick Pick" or randomized numbers to better their odds.

Per Bissonnette: "I hesitate to even say this, but if you do buy lottery tickets, picking random numbers is the way to do it. Using random numbers you pick means you're more likely to pick numbers someone else has, and then you'll be more likely to split."

Bissonnette describes the video as an epic fail for a credible and highly respected news site.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 12, 2013, 12:55 pm - IP Logged

"I guess this is the place to discuss odds, but lately it seems there are more members who are here just to argue semantics."

I think some are here just to argue because in their world among their associates their arguments would make them look foolish.  At LP they can find an audience that will engage them or so they like to think when someone tries to make sense of the non sense they post.

Arguments are simply two different points of view and sometimes depending on how logic is applied, both arguments are correct even if the math is totally different. It's correct to say 10 pick-3 straight bets have a 1 in 100 chance of winning, but only if each of the 10 chances are evenly distributed 1 each between each of the ten 100 chances. If all 10 chances were in one group of 100, that group has a 10 out of 100 chances while the other nine groups have zero chance. Before saying as fact 10 chances out of 1000 have a 1 in 100 chance, somebody better explain why the 900 chances with a zero chance are ignored. Would it correct to say if each of the 10 chances had the same digit in the first digit position, they have 1 in 10 chance by assuming none of the other 9 digits will be drawn in the first digit position?

IMO it's a waste of time arguing about it because results will show the player will either win or lose and using Thrifty's logic has a 50/50 chance. It's much more likely the lottery will win, but from the player's point of view winning or losing are the only two possible outcomes.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7308 Posts
Offline
 Posted: August 13, 2013, 11:36 am - IP Logged

To get back on topic, many of our "good for all states for a month" predictors are using math and logic for bragging rights. Most of them give 50 pick-3 straight/box combos so I tried an experiment using 10 combos to find out if in fact they were good in all states. There are 69 state/jurisdiction daily pick-3 games, some have two drawings a day, some have no Sunday drawings, and the same results are used in multiple states. So I needed at least 1 box win in 42 different state/jurisdictions. In the first 12 drawings I played 10 combos and had hits in over 50%, but decided I needed at least 20 to offset the states with only 6 drawings a week because the states without hits had a string of doubles.

Both of the 10 lines I used included each digit in each digit position and each group of ten had a 2if3 guarantee. Each of the 20 lines had three different digit and even though I knew I was giving up 28% of the drawings if a double or triple was drawn, it only took 26 drawings to get at least 1 box hit in each state and the 51% prize ratio was slightly better than probability. Seven of the state/jurisdictions showed a profit and probably the reason some predictors boast about their "predicting skills". Eleven other of the state/jurisdictions had over a 51% prize ratio and a predictor could still point out a profit could be made by only playing a few of their "special or hot" 20 lines in 18..

My conclusions are simple, anyone without using math can create a group of 50 QPs and can expect to get a hit at least one box hit in every state/jurisdiction every month. "My hot" or "my special" numbers are nothing more than benefiting by the math.

 Page 30 of 38