Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 1:02 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 5 of 38
56
PrintE-mailLink
SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 16, 2013, 2:56 pm - IP Logged

SergeM, I'm surprised you needed to ask, "What do you want to simulate?"

I have no need to simulate/backtest lotto game systems because I know what the results will reveal.  But if you need help deciding, for starters, why not backtest playing wheels of 15 numbers in MM, discarding 41 HOT (or DUE) numbers by looking back at past results? The backtest code should be written to allow for easy conversion to a simulation by replacing past actual draws with computer generated ones.  This way, there need be no limit on the number of draws looked at for statistical purposes.

I published computer code and results of simulations/backtests several times here in the past.  What we need is a believer who can also write programs that he/she is willing to publish source code of for public scrutiny, as I did.

--Jimmy4164

p.s.  Let the excuses begin!

I have backtesting programs, I don't have to write them.

why not backtest playing wheels of 15 numbers in MM

What wheels are you talking about?

discarding 41 HOT (or DUE) numbers by looking back at past result

What is HOT or DUE, what 41?

You don't sound like a programmer or mathematician to me.

    SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
    Economy class
    Belgium
    Member #123700
    February 27, 2012
    4035 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 16, 2013, 3:24 pm - IP Logged
    jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
    Pennsylvania
    United States
    Member #93975
    July 10, 2010
    1610 Posts
    Online
    Posted: Today, 8:20 pm - IP LoggedReplyFavorites

    It doesn't really matter SergeM.

    Stack47 is quite astute when it comes to clearly describing the many nuances of combinatorics and their associated probabilities.  One of my earliest posts at this website contained a casual reference to the fact that by choosing certain distributions in your betting you could, if you chose to, spread your winnings out over more frequent smaller hits.  I've brought it up several times since then too.  Nobody commented at the time, apparently because I was also making it clear that overall long term winnings would remain the same.  This is ALL that Stack47's truisms are going to accomplish!

    Here's another excerpt from the post I quoted earlier that you objected to as being out of context.

    "The logic is the conditions we set and the math is what we should expect by meeting the conditions. A 3 if 3 of 15 numbers wheel has 57 lines so that must be compared to other 57 line bets. The odds against any 57 lines having a 3 number match in MM is 5.37 to 1. By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match by 'if this then that'."

    Ah, yes, "CONDITIONS" and "IF."  (Those words are used often in situations involving UNCERTAINTY, aren't they?)  Stack47 delights in using the "n if m" construction.  Realistically, it should read...
          n  IF  m .
    He says, "By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match..."  Now, that's quite a mouthful.  IF he had a way to guarantee that "3 of the 15 numbers will match," he would not be posting here, he would be sunbathing on the Riviera!  The fact is, his mostly true mathematical assertions about the probabilities that WOULD hold IF he was guaranteed a 3/15 match are of absolutely NO value, because he has no way of guaranteeing this "condition."  His methods of reducing sets of 56 or 59 numbers to 15 involve the long debunked approaches of choosing "HOT" or "DUE" numbers, or meaningless. and often silly, "patterns."  The balls are not aware of patterns.

    Several proponents of these approaches claim to be computer programmers.  If they are, they should know how easy it would be to write the necessary [simple] code to simulate their methods using Monte Carlo Methods and prove, or disprove, once and for all, their assertions.

    IF they feel it is too complex a task to simulate the counting of previously drawn numbers to generate their sets of 15, cycling through all the historical results available, THEN I'm here to tell them it's time they sign up for an introductory programming course at their local college.

    Of course, now they will claim there is much more than HOT and DUE involved - there are all the other patterns to consider, including the DIGIT frequencies, layed out by the digit man.  Believe me, even as you read this, there are countless simulations running with extreme complexity in economics, sociology, the physical sciences, and many other fields.  Most are using vast amounts of actual data intertwined with data generated with random number generators.  To claim that the SIMPLICITIES of Lotto gaming "Systems" can not be reliably simulated, is a Royal Cop Out!

    --Jimmy4164

    SergeM, I'm surprised you needed to ask, "What do you want to simulate?"

    I have no need to simulate/backtest lotto game systems because I know what the results will reveal.  But if you need help deciding, for starters, why not backtest playing wheels of 15 numbers in MM, discarding 41 HOT (or DUE) numbers by looking back at past results? The backtest code should be written to allow for easy conversion to a simulation by replacing past actual draws with computer generated ones.  This way, there need be no limit on the number of draws looked at for statistical purposes.

    I published computer code and results of simulations/backtests several times here in the past.  What we need is a believer who can also write programs that he/she is willing to publish source code of for public scrutiny, as I did.

    --Jimmy4164

    p.s.  Let the excuses begin!

    ***************************************************************************************************************

    1) You have no need of backtests.
    2) You propose that a backtest should be written.

    That is a contradiction.

    One does not backtest a created wheel, a wheel has a condition to play.

    I didn't see your code. You don't mention a link.

    I propose that you write your codes yourself, you publish them and you do the testing with the publishing of the results after each drawing. You then risk your own money on the 3if3 wheels with 15 numbers for MM, that you backtested. Then start writing a book about what are due and hot numbers, add why you didn't want the 41. Now that you know what is coming anyway without all that, you can include your winning prediction method in your free e-book.

     


      United States
      Member #93947
      July 10, 2010
      2180 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 16, 2013, 3:44 pm - IP Logged

      SergeM says, "I didn't see your code. You don't mention a link.

      The only way certain people will be convinced that looking back at past draws will NOT help them win is if they themselves, or a trusted friend, implements a backtest and/or simulation that demonstrates it.  My past posts, some including computer code, can be found with the LP "View Recent Posts" link.  I've invested too much time already trying to teach people who don't want to learn.  You do the digging.

        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
        mid-Ohio
        United States
        Member #9
        March 24, 2001
        19817 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 16, 2013, 5:07 pm - IP Logged
        jimmy4164's avatar - andy warhol.jpg
        Pennsylvania
        United States
        Member #93975
        July 10, 2010
        1610 Posts
        Online
        Posted: Today, 8:20 pm - IP LoggedReplyFavorites

        It doesn't really matter SergeM.

        Stack47 is quite astute when it comes to clearly describing the many nuances of combinatorics and their associated probabilities.  One of my earliest posts at this website contained a casual reference to the fact that by choosing certain distributions in your betting you could, if you chose to, spread your winnings out over more frequent smaller hits.  I've brought it up several times since then too.  Nobody commented at the time, apparently because I was also making it clear that overall long term winnings would remain the same.  This is ALL that Stack47's truisms are going to accomplish!

        Here's another excerpt from the post I quoted earlier that you objected to as being out of context.

        "The logic is the conditions we set and the math is what we should expect by meeting the conditions. A 3 if 3 of 15 numbers wheel has 57 lines so that must be compared to other 57 line bets. The odds against any 57 lines having a 3 number match in MM is 5.37 to 1. By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match by 'if this then that'."

        Ah, yes, "CONDITIONS" and "IF."  (Those words are used often in situations involving UNCERTAINTY, aren't they?)  Stack47 delights in using the "n if m" construction.  Realistically, it should read...
              n  IF  m .
        He says, "By setting the conditions that 3 of the 15 numbers will match, we can get a guaranteed 3 number match..."  Now, that's quite a mouthful.  IF he had a way to guarantee that "3 of the 15 numbers will match," he would not be posting here, he would be sunbathing on the Riviera!  The fact is, his mostly true mathematical assertions about the probabilities that WOULD hold IF he was guaranteed a 3/15 match are of absolutely NO value, because he has no way of guaranteeing this "condition."  His methods of reducing sets of 56 or 59 numbers to 15 involve the long debunked approaches of choosing "HOT" or "DUE" numbers, or meaningless. and often silly, "patterns."  The balls are not aware of patterns.

        Several proponents of these approaches claim to be computer programmers.  If they are, they should know how easy it would be to write the necessary [simple] code to simulate their methods using Monte Carlo Methods and prove, or disprove, once and for all, their assertions.

        IF they feel it is too complex a task to simulate the counting of previously drawn numbers to generate their sets of 15, cycling through all the historical results available, THEN I'm here to tell them it's time they sign up for an introductory programming course at their local college.

        Of course, now they will claim there is much more than HOT and DUE involved - there are all the other patterns to consider, including the DIGIT frequencies, layed out by the digit man.  Believe me, even as you read this, there are countless simulations running with extreme complexity in economics, sociology, the physical sciences, and many other fields.  Most are using vast amounts of actual data intertwined with data generated with random number generators.  To claim that the SIMPLICITIES of Lotto gaming "Systems" can not be reliably simulated, is a Royal Cop Out!

        --Jimmy4164

        SergeM, I'm surprised you needed to ask, "What do you want to simulate?"

        I have no need to simulate/backtest lotto game systems because I know what the results will reveal.  But if you need help deciding, for starters, why not backtest playing wheels of 15 numbers in MM, discarding 41 HOT (or DUE) numbers by looking back at past results? The backtest code should be written to allow for easy conversion to a simulation by replacing past actual draws with computer generated ones.  This way, there need be no limit on the number of draws looked at for statistical purposes.

        I published computer code and results of simulations/backtests several times here in the past.  What we need is a believer who can also write programs that he/she is willing to publish source code of for public scrutiny, as I did.

        --Jimmy4164

        p.s.  Let the excuses begin!

        ***************************************************************************************************************

        1) You have no need of backtests.
        2) You propose that a backtest should be written.

        That is a contradiction.

        One does not backtest a created wheel, a wheel has a condition to play.

        I didn't see your code. You don't mention a link.

        I propose that you write your codes yourself, you publish them and you do the testing with the publishing of the results after each drawing. You then risk your own money on the 3if3 wheels with 15 numbers for MM, that you backtested. Then start writing a book about what are due and hot numbers, add why you didn't want the 41. Now that you know what is coming anyway without all that, you can include your winning prediction method in your free e-book.

         

        I doubt if Jimmy will accept your challenge, he want you to write a quality lottery program and make
        it available to anyone who wants it, mainly himself.

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

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7297 Posts
          Online
          Posted: March 16, 2013, 5:54 pm - IP Logged

          I doubt if Jimmy will accept your challenge, he want you to write a quality lottery program and make
          it available to anyone who wants it, mainly himself.

          I never thought it mattered which numbers players put into their wheels or why because they are betting five of those numbers will be drawn or at least enough numbers to cover the wheel guarantee. Any bet made in any type of gambling is made because the bettor, believes, wants, or hopes they made the correct decision.

          "he want you to write a quality lottery program and make it available to anyone who wants it, mainly himself."

          He would probably ask someone to write a program before he could decide to call heads or tails on a coin flip.


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 16, 2013, 6:14 pm - IP Logged

            I never thought it mattered which numbers players put into their wheels or why because they are betting five of those numbers will be drawn or at least enough numbers to cover the wheel guarantee. Any bet made in any type of gambling is made because the bettor, believes, wants, or hopes they made the correct decision.

            "he want you to write a quality lottery program and make it available to anyone who wants it, mainly himself."

            He would probably ask someone to write a program before he could decide to call heads or tails on a coin flip.

            Stack47 & RJOh,

            So now, when my suggestion that believers in their systems should be the ones to write backtesters and/or simulators is met with an excuse, you call it a "challenge."

            First of all, I have no NEED for anyone to write a computer program for me, especially this type of program. (If you only knew how true that statement is.)  Secondly, I KNOW what a simulation or backtest of your silly Lotto Systems will produce.  The point I am trying to make is that unless one of the believers here is willing (and able) to write the program[s,] and subsequently have the courage to eat crow and post the results, what I am asserting will not be generally accepted [here.]  Never mind that every department of math and computer science in the world would accept it.

            You must believe that the average reader here is stupid.  I don't know how you sleep at night.

            --Jimmy4164


              United States
              Member #124493
              March 14, 2012
              7023 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 16, 2013, 6:46 pm - IP Logged

              I don't know but if they can I would like to be the first to prove it.

              You say you dont know.

              But do you believe it can be?

              If you dont believe it can be proven, and you dont know then you are on a slippery slope.

              Are you talking about a mathematical proof published at Harvard University?

              In which case quit playing lottery now, and just start winning theoretical money.

              Or are you talking about proof of many commas and zeros in your bank account?

              In which case are you ready to show everybody a copy of your bank statement to prove you have won?

              And if you believe that it can be proven then you may have witnessed something within the game that led you to believe?

              Or maybe you just saw some bleeding turnips in a dream or something?  And with the recent conclave you thought the bleeding turnips was a holy sign, like a stigmata or something, causing you to believe something you would not ordinarily believe?


                United States
                Member #124493
                March 14, 2012
                7023 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 16, 2013, 6:55 pm - IP Logged

                The backtest code should be written to allow for easy conversion to a simulation by replacing past actual draws with computer generated ones.  This way, there need be no limit on the number of draws looked at for statistical purposes

                This is apparantly a collage of quotes from two different people. So now I am all confused.

                 

                What is the purpose of replacing actual draws with computer generated ones? This is the most asinine and insane thing I have ever heard.

                Thats like saying I took a shower in my dream, therefore there is no need to worry about dirt when I wake up.

                If in the RNG (the dream), the 15 hits ten times, and in real life (waking) the 15 hits 2 times, then your data is all askew, and you cant bet correctly in real life, unless we are planning to play the 15 as power number in our dream. 

                @serge, I am really looking forward to your free ebook.Wink

                  RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                  mid-Ohio
                  United States
                  Member #9
                  March 24, 2001
                  19817 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 16, 2013, 7:52 pm - IP Logged

                  Stack47 & RJOh,

                  So now, when my suggestion that believers in their systems should be the ones to write backtesters and/or simulators is met with an excuse, you call it a "challenge."

                  First of all, I have no NEED for anyone to write a computer program for me, especially this type of program. (If you only knew how true that statement is.)  Secondly, I KNOW what a simulation or backtest of your silly Lotto Systems will produce.  The point I am trying to make is that unless one of the believers here is willing (and able) to write the program[s,] and subsequently have the courage to eat crow and post the results, what I am asserting will not be generally accepted [here.]  Never mind that every department of math and computer science in the world would accept it.

                  You must believe that the average reader here is stupid.  I don't know how you sleep at night.

                  --Jimmy4164

                  Where are you coming up with this nonsense?  You can't back test the future regardless of what you believe.  And who said you had to be a computer programmer to win a lottery jack pot?  You are trying to high jack this thread and make it something it's not.

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


                    United States
                    Member #124493
                    March 14, 2012
                    7023 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 16, 2013, 9:16 pm - IP Logged

                    Where are you coming up with this nonsense?  You can't back test the future regardless of what you believe.  And who said you had to be a computer programmer to win a lottery jack pot?  You are trying to high jack this thread and make it something it's not.

                    Thinking of...

                    I am so curious what this nonsense might be!!Hyper

                     

                    Unfortunately,    Quote Blocked: You are blocking posts by jimmy4164                     Crying

                     

                     

                    Could it be bleeding turnips again?Hyper

                    Thinking of...


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 17, 2013, 1:17 am - IP Logged

                      Where are you coming up with this nonsense?  You can't back test the future regardless of what you believe.  And who said you had to be a computer programmer to win a lottery jack pot?  You are trying to high jack this thread and make it something it's not.

                      RJOh,

                      "Where are you coming up with this nonsense?"
                      What nonsense?  Are you now going to pretend that this has never been discussed in these Forums before, and that I have not started threads devoted exclusively to backtesting and Monte Carlo Simulation techniques?

                      Click here to refresh your memory.

                      "You can't back test the future regardless of what you believe."
                      Who has suggested backtesting the future?  It appears you don't know the difference between a backtester and a simulator, and that they can share as much as 90% of their code.
                       
                      "And who said you had to be a computer programmer to win a lottery jack pot?"
                      I don't know.  Who did?  Sounds like a dumb thing to say to me.

                      "You are trying to high jack this thread and make it something it's not."
                      No, I'm posting in a thread with a Question for a Topic Title.  It's customary to answer these questions.  In this case, my negative response to the question was met with hostility, forcing me to defend my position.  You are quicker than most to respond when your positions are challenged.  I don't see where our behaviour under these circumstances can be defined as "high-jacking."  Could you please explain?

                      When you and others are firmly convinced of something, don't you think it would make more sense to entitle your threads with a declaration of your convictions, rather than query others for their opinion?

                      Based on your triple team efforts here, it's obvious you've set out to suppress my suggestion that Lottery System proponents should provide Backtest and/or Simulation support for their claims.  As I said earlier, I don't know how you people sleep at night.

                      --Jimmy4164


                        United States
                        Member #124493
                        March 14, 2012
                        7023 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 17, 2013, 1:40 am - IP Logged

                        Hyper

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #130795
                          July 25, 2012
                          80 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 17, 2013, 7:46 am - IP Logged

                          Oh, cool. Congratulations!!! I think you kinda answered your question right there. I think the odds in the Ohio classic is around 1 in 50,000  of matching 5 of 6. A little over 1 in 5,000,000 for 5 of 5 in PB. Nearly 4,000,000 fpr MM. Sounds like you already beat the odds.

                          In a drag race, if a record for speed or time is broken, it takes a similar pass to make it fact. I think you have made that as fact with the two 5 of 6 wins. I don't think there has been 50,000 draws pass since you hit twice has there. LOL. And I know there hasn't been over 4 to 5,000,000 draws for the others.

                          I get it from here all the time how it's only luck that's involved. I hate that. I figure if I was so lucky to pull up the numbers as many times as I have for a jackpot game, I should have already won and would have no need to try to figure out a way.

                          Congratulations on the win!!!

                          RJOh wrote:  "I've matched 5of6 twice, once in 2002 and again last month."

                          Greenfox wrote:  "Oh, cool. Congratulations!!! [....] I think the odds in the Ohio classic is around 1 in 50,000  of matching 5 of 6.  [....] Sounds like you already beat the odds.  [....] I don't think there has been 50,000 draws pass since you hit twice has there. LOL."

                          You seem to be easily impressed, and you misunderstand the statistics.

                          First, the Internet is full of people who make unverifiable claims just to stroke their ego, even if there is no financial gain.

                          Second, there does not have to be 50,000 [sic] drawings in order to match 5-of-6 in two separate drawings.

                          For the Ohio Classic 6/49 lottery [1], there were about 1581 to 1747 drawings between some time in 2002 and some time in Feb 2013 [2].

                          If RJOh bought only 1 ticket per drawing, the chances of matching 5-of-6 twice are between 1-in-1989 and 1-in-2422, based on the binomial distribution [3].

                          However, if RJOh bought 8 tickets per drawing with 48 unique 5-tuples, the chances of matching 5-of-6 twice are between 1-in-39 and 1-in-46.

                          And since RJOh assumes that "players coming to LP have graduated beyond the casual lottery player", my guess is that RJOh buys more than just 8 tickets per drawing.

                           

                           

                          ------

                          [1] I assume RJOh won the Ohio Classic twice, because Powerball and MegaMillions do not have a 5-of-6 prize category per se.

                          [2] I am just counting the number of Mon, Wed and Sat dates.  I am not checking to see if there were any missed drawings for any reason.

                          [3] In Excel, =1/BINOMDIST(2,1581,1/54201,0), for example.  Instead of 1/54201, I use the exact probability, namely COMBIN(6,5)*43/COMBIN(49,6).

                            SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
                            Economy class
                            Belgium
                            Member #123700
                            February 27, 2012
                            4035 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 17, 2013, 12:39 pm - IP Logged

                            RJOh wrote:  "I've matched 5of6 twice, once in 2002 and again last month."

                            Greenfox wrote:  "Oh, cool. Congratulations!!! [....] I think the odds in the Ohio classic is around 1 in 50,000  of matching 5 of 6.  [....] Sounds like you already beat the odds.  [....] I don't think there has been 50,000 draws pass since you hit twice has there. LOL."

                            You seem to be easily impressed, and you misunderstand the statistics.

                            First, the Internet is full of people who make unverifiable claims just to stroke their ego, even if there is no financial gain.

                            Second, there does not have to be 50,000 [sic] drawings in order to match 5-of-6 in two separate drawings.

                            For the Ohio Classic 6/49 lottery [1], there were about 1581 to 1747 drawings between some time in 2002 and some time in Feb 2013 [2].

                            If RJOh bought only 1 ticket per drawing, the chances of matching 5-of-6 twice are between 1-in-1989 and 1-in-2422, based on the binomial distribution [3].

                            However, if RJOh bought 8 tickets per drawing with 48 unique 5-tuples, the chances of matching 5-of-6 twice are between 1-in-39 and 1-in-46.

                            And since RJOh assumes that "players coming to LP have graduated beyond the casual lottery player", my guess is that RJOh buys more than just 8 tickets per drawing.

                             

                             

                            ------

                            [1] I assume RJOh won the Ohio Classic twice, because Powerball and MegaMillions do not have a 5-of-6 prize category per se.

                            [2] I am just counting the number of Mon, Wed and Sat dates.  I am not checking to see if there were any missed drawings for any reason.

                            [3] In Excel, =1/BINOMDIST(2,1581,1/54201,0), for example.  Instead of 1/54201, I use the exact probability, namely COMBIN(6,5)*43/COMBIN(49,6).

                            Why don't you ask him how he did it?

                              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                              mid-Ohio
                              United States
                              Member #9
                              March 24, 2001
                              19817 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: March 17, 2013, 4:21 pm - IP Logged

                              RJOh,

                              "Where are you coming up with this nonsense?"
                              What nonsense?  Are you now going to pretend that this has never been discussed in these Forums before, and that I have not started threads devoted exclusively to backtesting and Monte Carlo Simulation techniques?

                              Click here to refresh your memory.

                              "You can't back test the future regardless of what you believe."
                              Who has suggested backtesting the future?  It appears you don't know the difference between a backtester and a simulator, and that they can share as much as 90% of their code.
                               
                              "And who said you had to be a computer programmer to win a lottery jack pot?"
                              I don't know.  Who did?  Sounds like a dumb thing to say to me.

                              "You are trying to high jack this thread and make it something it's not."
                              No, I'm posting in a thread with a Question for a Topic Title.  It's customary to answer these questions.  In this case, my negative response to the question was met with hostility, forcing me to defend my position.  You are quicker than most to respond when your positions are challenged.  I don't see where our behaviour under these circumstances can be defined as "high-jacking."  Could you please explain?

                              When you and others are firmly convinced of something, don't you think it would make more sense to entitle your threads with a declaration of your convictions, rather than query others for their opinion?

                              Based on your triple team efforts here, it's obvious you've set out to suppress my suggestion that Lottery System proponents should provide Backtest and/or Simulation support for their claims.  As I said earlier, I don't know how you people sleep at night.

                              --Jimmy4164

                              When you and others are firmly convinced of something, don't you think it would make more sense to entitle your threads with a declaration of your convictions, rather than query others for their opinion?

                              No.

                              Based on your triple team efforts here, it's obvious you've set out to suppress my suggestion that Lottery System proponents should provide Backtest and/or Simulation support for their claims.  As I said earlier, I don't know how you people sleep at night.

                              Suggest as much as you want, no one is trying to suppress anything you post.  Don't take it personal if others continue to pick the combinations they play their own way, your opinions don't effect how they choose to play.

                              Good luck to you.

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

                                 
                                Page 5 of 38