United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Apr 10, 2013
"If you had unblocked my posts sooner you might have noticed that the Massachusetts Cash Winfal game was brought up by RJOh as an example of a report of declining lottery returns."
I would never block RJ because he adds to any discussion and you're either flat out wrong about RJ bringing up "rates of return" or you are suffering from advanced senility.
RJ said: "I was responding to your comment "I haven't seen any reports of declines in rates of return from any state lotteries either", it didn't include why there was a decline."
"didn't include why there was a decline" and it's not the first time you've were deceitful about what someone said and probably won't be the last.
You really ARE a stickler for the minutiae, especially when they detract from someone's real questions.
Apparently, you disagree with the point I was trying to make, that system players were having no effect on lottery commission returns. So, for the record, what is your position on the question of the rates of return of state lottery commissions? Would you say lottery commission returns have been declining, advancing, or holding their own?
Also, since you seemed concerned about the bad MONTH that KY had a while back, I've been wondering if you were able to find out how poorly some of our lotteries may have done on the DAY they were forced to pay out a record number of first tier prizes.
In the interest of moving forward here, I hope you'll give me a break if I happen to overlook or confuse one of the details. I know you want to move ahead with your serious work of determining an optimal way to use previous draw information to make informed decisions for future draws. Once you settle on an optimal solution, you'll be free to spend all of your working hours selecting numbers and filling out slips. Actually, I often wonder why you devote so much time here trying to convince others that the handful of people posting with math backgrounds, like myself, are wrong. I purposely refrained from posting in several of these types of threads for as long as a week. Result? Not an "inch" of progress was made.
I see you've been discussing these issues here for a little over 7 years, so maybe you're just getting a tad impatient. Correct?
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Apparently, you disagree with the point I was trying to make, that system players were having no effect on lottery commission returns. So, for the record, what is your position on the question of the rates of return of state lottery commissions? Would you say lottery commission returns have been declining, advancing, or holding their own?
I wont bother reading the rest of the drivel in your post Jammy, but I distinctly remember that Stack already answered the question that you are now asked again. Perhaps some can copy and paste it for you from the previous page?
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 10, 2013
You really ARE a stickler for the minutiae, especially when they detract from someone's real questions.
Apparently, you disagree with the point I was trying to make, that system players were having no effect on lottery commission returns. So, for the record, what is your position on the question of the rates of return of state lottery commissions? Would you say lottery commission returns have been declining, advancing, or holding their own?
Also, since you seemed concerned about the bad MONTH that KY had a while back, I've been wondering if you were able to find out how poorly some of our lotteries may have done on the DAY they were forced to pay out a record number of first tier prizes.
In the interest of moving forward here, I hope you'll give me a break if I happen to overlook or confuse one of the details. I know you want to move ahead with your serious work of determining an optimal way to use previous draw information to make informed decisions for future draws. Once you settle on an optimal solution, you'll be free to spend all of your working hours selecting numbers and filling out slips. Actually, I often wonder why you devote so much time here trying to convince others that the handful of people posting with math backgrounds, like myself, are wrong. I purposely refrained from posting in several of these types of threads for as long as a week. Result? Not an "inch" of progress was made.
I see you've been discussing these issues here for a little over 7 years, so maybe you're just getting a tad impatient. Correct?
"You really ARE a stickler for the minutiae, especially when they detract from someone's real questions."
That's because your questions are usually irrelevant to the topic.
"So, for the record, what is your position on the question of the rates of return of state lottery commissions?"
How can my opinion on the distribution of lottery profits help Ronnie decide if playing the recently drawn numbers is worthwhile?
"Would you say lottery commission returns have been declining, advancing, or holding their own?"
It would be more interesting and helpful if you answered a previous asked question. What is the probability of at least one of the other 21 numbers being drawn and has that specific group out preformed probability historically?
"I see you've been discussing these issues here for a little over 7 years, so maybe you're just getting a tad impatient. Correct?"
I've discussed lottery and gaming related topics on LP for that long, but that doesn't include all the private discussions and considerably more discussion with other lottery players long before I joined LP. Why others have joined is none of my business and what they discuss is their choice. I joined after reading a discussion about online lottery sites paying $900 to 1 on pick-3 and $9000 to 1 on pick-4 because I wondered how the sites could payoff an unexpected large number of winning tickets.
If I'm impatient it's because of some the useless information I read and you post your fair share of it.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Apr 11, 2013
"You really ARE a stickler for the minutiae, especially when they detract from someone's real questions."
That's because your questions are usually irrelevant to the topic.
"So, for the record, what is your position on the question of the rates of return of state lottery commissions?"
How can my opinion on the distribution of lottery profits help Ronnie decide if playing the recently drawn numbers is worthwhile?
"Would you say lottery commission returns have been declining, advancing, or holding their own?"
It would be more interesting and helpful if you answered a previous asked question. What is the probability of at least one of the other 21 numbers being drawn and has that specific group out preformed probability historically?
"I see you've been discussing these issues here for a little over 7 years, so maybe you're just getting a tad impatient. Correct?"
I've discussed lottery and gaming related topics on LP for that long, but that doesn't include all the private discussions and considerably more discussion with other lottery players long before I joined LP. Why others have joined is none of my business and what they discuss is their choice. I joined after reading a discussion about online lottery sites paying $900 to 1 on pick-3 and $9000 to 1 on pick-4 because I wondered how the sites could payoff an unexpected large number of winning tickets.
If I'm impatient it's because of some the useless information I read and you post your fair share of it.
Stack47,
"It would be more interesting and helpful if you answered a previous asked question. What is the probability of at least one of the other 21 numbers being drawn and has that specific group out preformed probability historically?"
It may be of interest to you, but to me, it's irrelevant. Since you've brought this up at least twice, I'll bet you just can't wait to tell us the answer. You're going to tell us about the probabilities dealing with your 21 discards and, more interestingly, the performance of certain groups of numbers over hundreds of draws in a game there the possibilities are in the millions.
If you must, go ahead. Tell us what it is.
It's really kind of sad that after 7 years you're still struggling with the question of how many numbers you can safely discard before choosing your sets of 5. Hopefully, one of these days it might occur to you that you can't discard ANY of them because the Gambler's Fallacy really is a fallacy, REALLY.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Apr 11, 2013
Stack47,
"It would be more interesting and helpful if you answered a previous asked question. What is the probability of at least one of the other 21 numbers being drawn and has that specific group out preformed probability historically?"
It may be of interest to you, but to me, it's irrelevant. Since you've brought this up at least twice, I'll bet you just can't wait to tell us the answer. You're going to tell us about the probabilities dealing with your 21 discards and, more interestingly, the performance of certain groups of numbers over hundreds of draws in a game there the possibilities are in the millions.
If you must, go ahead. Tell us what it is.
It's really kind of sad that after 7 years you're still struggling with the question of how many numbers you can safely discard before choosing your sets of 5. Hopefully, one of these days it might occur to you that you can't discard ANY of them because the Gambler's Fallacy really is a fallacy, REALLY.
--Jimmy4164
the performance of certain groups of numbers over hundreds of draws in a game there the possibilities are in the millions.
Jammy is irrelevant. Its too bad he cant (in his lifetime) figure out that we are NOT playing "hundreds of draws" at a time, but rather just ONE at a time. Conditional bets give us BETTER ODDS on a SINGLE draw.