Welcome Guest
You last visited May 20, 2018, 1:27 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# is anyone making an income from lottery

Topic closed. 629 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Stack47.

 Page 27 of 42
New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 2, 2013, 10:18 pm - IP Logged

You're right, you didn't put words in my mouth with that specific example, because I did say that.  But, you've put plenty of words in my mouth, half the things you claim I've said, I haven't.  (That nobody could be ahead, as an example.  I never said that, but that didn't stop you from claiming I did.)

In that instance, why would I wager \$799 to win 1?  Because it's a 99.9% chance to win 1 dollar, and a .1% chance of losing 799.  I have a 20% edge over that bet, so as long as I can afford to lose the \$799 if I get unlucky, I'll take that bet (well the math behind bankroll management is slightly more confusing than that.)

I didn't feel the need to get specific, but I guess I will.  The math is Edge/Variance*Bankroll = optimal wager for bankroll growth.  So .2/800*X= 1 dollar, simplifies to X = 4000.  As long as my bankroll is \$4,000 or more, I'd take that bet.  (You can take it with less, although it's suboptimal if you don't have \$4000)  Because I have an edge, and have the bankroll to sustain some bad luck.  Therefore, it's a good bet in terms of 1) Edge and 2) Bankroll growth.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 2, 2013, 10:28 pm - IP Logged

"I don't see the point of estimating how many sessions and rolls the average Craps player sees in a life time because their next session is a new event."

Every time you roll it's a new event.  But that doesn't change the fact that expected value is cumulative, and that mathematically, you're life is ONE LONG SESSION.  That's the math.  Plain and simple.  You can keep arguing if you want, but you are wrong.  Just like the Earth is round and the moon orbits it, your life time of playing craps is mathemetically all one session.  Your claim that the next session is a new event is the equivalent of saying that the Earth is flat, because you've never gone all the way around it and ended at the same point.  There are facts, and then there are statements.  You are making statements without any solid foundation of factual evidence or knowledge behind it.

Say what you want about how it "feels" in your head, that's not the point.  The math is solid.  Craps isn't "about timing" it's about the math.  Period.  If you think you can profit off of it, you are probably mistaken (there is some debate raging about Dice Influencing, but the casinos don't bat an eye, and nobody has ever proved that it's possible, so you be the judge.  Although knowing you, you'd say it must be possible if it's not disproven, and while I can't argue that that's not true, I can state that it's so unlikely I won't bother to waste my time on it.)

I don't know why I'm even trying.  It's so clear to me that you don't care about the facts, you only care to make claims based on the fallacies that are your opinions.  If you knew the math, or cared to learn it, then there may be a point.  As it is now, you're really only here to argue with anything I say.

I could say 1+1 is 2 and you'd say it's "11".  So I think I'm done here.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7721 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 2, 2013, 11:53 pm - IP Logged

You're right, you didn't put words in my mouth with that specific example, because I did say that.  But, you've put plenty of words in my mouth, half the things you claim I've said, I haven't.  (That nobody could be ahead, as an example.  I never said that, but that didn't stop you from claiming I did.)

In that instance, why would I wager \$799 to win 1?  Because it's a 99.9% chance to win 1 dollar, and a .1% chance of losing 799.  I have a 20% edge over that bet, so as long as I can afford to lose the \$799 if I get unlucky, I'll take that bet (well the math behind bankroll management is slightly more confusing than that.)

I didn't feel the need to get specific, but I guess I will.  The math is Edge/Variance*Bankroll = optimal wager for bankroll growth.  So .2/800*X= 1 dollar, simplifies to X = 4000.  As long as my bankroll is \$4,000 or more, I'd take that bet.  (You can take it with less, although it's suboptimal if you don't have \$4000)  Because I have an edge, and have the bankroll to sustain some bad luck.  Therefore, it's a good bet in terms of 1) Edge and 2) Bankroll growth.

"When did anyone suggest that they are in cahoots with the State of NH's lottery?"

Jimmy said: "Steve Player, Keith Price, Peter St.Pierre, and those collecting fees to read about them, are the only ones making a consistent and reliable income from these picks."

There is no evidence Peter St. Pierre is selling picks, but his winnings became known because the NH Lottery published them. It looks like Jimmy said the NH lottery is collecting a fee to read about St. Pierre's winnings and the KY lottery is collecting a fee to read about Price.

Steve Player sells systems and is using the fact the NH Lottery is publishing his winnings as free advertisement. I noticed Keith Price over a year ago, but didn't know he was selling picks until Ronnie pointed it out. I can't compare Price to Player because Keith's picks are only six picks for a buck. It's obvious Price is benefiting some because his winnings are published on the KY site, but since one of his six picks hit straight within a week, how can I call it a scam?

"But, you've put plenty of words in my mouth, half the things you claim I've said, I haven't.  (That nobody could be ahead, as an example."

When I reviewed our conversations, most of your replies to me were after I replied to Jimmy.

You commented on the first sentence when I said "It's useless for you to give the probability against it happening when there is a chance. Someday you'll figure out lottery players are playing for the "1" chance even if it is 1 in 175 million.", but omitted the second sentence which clarified the first.

Do you see any reason to give the probability against winning a MM or PB jackpot with one chance of winning when millions of lottery players are playing for the "1" chance even if it is 1 in 175 million?

It's none of my business if you agree with Jimmy, but when you don't quote what I was replying to or reply to only half of my remarks, you're taking my remarks out of context.

Just saying.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 1:50 am - IP Logged

That's certainly not what it seems like he was saying to me.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 11:58 am - IP Logged

Jimmy calls himself a "critical thinker" and then he conjures up a fairy tale about St. Pierre.

"critical thinking" is a imaginary term that in reality mean "self aggrandizement".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggrandize

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 12:23 pm - IP Logged

That's certainly not what it seems like he was saying to me.

u\$a
United States
Member #106665
February 22, 2011
19967 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 12:57 pm - IP Logged

I forgot to add, you probably also haven't read what I wrote earlier about this too, or simply ignored it. I said It was possible Pete was modifying Steve's numbers to win so much, so often. I wasn't putting so much emphasis on Steve's system in particular, but how Pete may be tweaking the numbers.

i would take them chances

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7721 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 1:34 pm - IP Logged

"I don't see the point of estimating how many sessions and rolls the average Craps player sees in a life time because their next session is a new event."

Every time you roll it's a new event.  But that doesn't change the fact that expected value is cumulative, and that mathematically, you're life is ONE LONG SESSION.  That's the math.  Plain and simple.  You can keep arguing if you want, but you are wrong.  Just like the Earth is round and the moon orbits it, your life time of playing craps is mathemetically all one session.  Your claim that the next session is a new event is the equivalent of saying that the Earth is flat, because you've never gone all the way around it and ended at the same point.  There are facts, and then there are statements.  You are making statements without any solid foundation of factual evidence or knowledge behind it.

Say what you want about how it "feels" in your head, that's not the point.  The math is solid.  Craps isn't "about timing" it's about the math.  Period.  If you think you can profit off of it, you are probably mistaken (there is some debate raging about Dice Influencing, but the casinos don't bat an eye, and nobody has ever proved that it's possible, so you be the judge.  Although knowing you, you'd say it must be possible if it's not disproven, and while I can't argue that that's not true, I can state that it's so unlikely I won't bother to waste my time on it.)

I don't know why I'm even trying.  It's so clear to me that you don't care about the facts, you only care to make claims based on the fallacies that are your opinions.  If you knew the math, or cared to learn it, then there may be a point.  As it is now, you're really only here to argue with anything I say.

I could say 1+1 is 2 and you'd say it's "11".  So I think I'm done here.

"But that doesn't change the fact that expected value is cumulative, and that mathematically, you're life is ONE LONG SESSION."

That math explains why the cost of a monthly life insurance premium is higher for a 50-year-old than a 20-year-old. But doesn't explain why a 50-year-old who wagered and lost \$100s trying to win life changing jackpots continues to wager when they know the odds against winning are just as bad on their next bet as their first bet.

When a 20-year-old says they "know they will win a jackpot", the math can never prove them wrong until their life insurance policy is paid. You can calculate the odds against one player winning a jackpot, but can't apply the same math to millions of other individual players because at least one of them will eventually win a jackpot.

"You are making statements without any solid foundation of factual evidence or knowledge behind it."

What are the odds against both the PB and MM 175 million to 1 jackpots being won before the 1st of June?

Will you still give me 799 to 1 on a \$100 bet against that happening?

The math on a Craps table is 36 possible outcomes and depending on the timing, six of those outcomes can result in a player winning on some of those outcomes and losing on others. When the shooter establishes the point, they might roll the dice 10 consecutive times with no winning or losing outcome or the outcome is known on the very next roll.

It's because of the math I don't make Field bets or bet on the "2" and the "12", but math doesn't prove I can't roll a series of Field numbers have no outcome. But when I do, it's not good timing for me and can be great timing for a Field bettor. Math can't predict the outcome of the next three rolls and if it's "number, number, seven", it's terrible timing for a Pass Line and Place bet player, but great timing for a Don't Pass with one Don't Come bet player.

"It's so clear to me that you don't care about the facts, you only care to make claims based on the fallacies that are your opinions."

The facts are crystal clear; the timing of when a seven is rolled has nothing to do with the odds against a seven being rolled unless you can predict the outcome of the next roll(s) before you make your bet. All bets are conditional and winning or losing is based on the timing.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 1:41 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 said,

"Jimmy said: 'Steve Player, Keith Price, Peter St.Pierre, and those collecting fees to read about them, are the only ones making a consistent and reliable income from these picks.'"

Stack47 also said, "There is no evidence Peter St. Pierre is selling picks, but his winnings became known because the NH Lottery published them. It looks like Jimmy said the NH lottery is collecting a fee to read about St. Pierre's winnings and the KY lottery is collecting a fee to read about Price."

Are you sure you're not having 2nd thoughts about focusing on who is collecting fees ?

Everyone here knows the lotteries sell tickets, not opportunities to discuss scams.

--Jimmy4164

Florence, Alabama
United States
Member #8658
November 13, 2004
2028 Posts
Online
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 1:48 pm - IP Logged

Yes..I made more than \$10 last month and am living the posh life!  But I am only 11 1/2 inches tall and live in a pink plastic house. Now if I could only get rid of Ken.

Lmaoooooo

I love doubles and remember, it's just a game!!!!!!

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 2:09 pm - IP Logged

Thanks stack, if it wasn't for you I would never know what Jam and Bam are professing about.

Perhaps timing is intuitive math.  Its a knowing without having to kowtow ( I spelt it correct that time) to the leftbrained dictatorial need to believe everything in a algebraic formulaic rational manner.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7721 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 3:32 pm - IP Logged

Stack47 said,

"Jimmy said: 'Steve Player, Keith Price, Peter St.Pierre, and those collecting fees to read about them, are the only ones making a consistent and reliable income from these picks.'"

Stack47 also said, "There is no evidence Peter St. Pierre is selling picks, but his winnings became known because the NH Lottery published them. It looks like Jimmy said the NH lottery is collecting a fee to read about St. Pierre's winnings and the KY lottery is collecting a fee to read about Price."

Are you sure you're not having 2nd thoughts about focusing on who is collecting fees ?

Everyone here knows the lotteries sell tickets, not opportunities to discuss scams.

--Jimmy4164

"Everyone here knows the lotteries sell tickets, not opportunities to discuss scams."

Based on the majority of your posts showing ignorance of real lottery play, how could I be sure you knew the difference?

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20207 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 4:33 pm - IP Logged

In February I won enough on an OCL ticket to put me \$1000+ ahead of what I had spent at that time on lottery tickets for the year but I wouldn't call it making an income.  I checked and as of tonight, I'm only \$507 ahead so unless I win another nice size prize  before the end of July, I'll likely be in the hole again.

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

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 5:24 pm - IP Logged

"What are the odds against both the PB and MM 175 million to 1 jackpots being won before the 1st of June?

Will you still give me 799 to 1 on a \$100 bet against that happening?"

When did I ever offer you that?  I didn't say "I'd bet 799 to 1 on anything you want."

I'm not even gonna respond to the rest of it, you're clearly ignoring my point, which is that the math can calculate the probabilities of all those events (streaks, etc.)  It is ALL math.  "Timing" is just the way your percieve it because you're a human (and presumably, you haven't studied statistics) not a robot.

It's your perception, which is off from the truth.  I'm not trying to talk down to you, I'm sure there are plenty of things I percieve, and will later find out is wrong.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 3, 2013, 6:52 pm - IP Logged

"What are the odds against both the PB and MM 175 million to 1 jackpots being won before the 1st of June?

Will you still give me 799 to 1 on a \$100 bet against that happening?"

When did I ever offer you that?  I didn't say "I'd bet 799 to 1 on anything you want."

I'm not even gonna respond to the rest of it, you're clearly ignoring my point, which is that the math can calculate the probabilities of all those events (streaks, etc.)  It is ALL math.  "Timing" is just the way your percieve it because you're a human (and presumably, you haven't studied statistics) not a robot.

It's your perception, which is off from the truth.  I'm not trying to talk down to you, I'm sure there are plenty of things I percieve, and will later find out is wrong.

It's your perception, which is off from the truth.  I'm not trying to talk down to you, I'm sure there are plenty of things I percieve, and will later find out is wrong.

How can you be certain it's his perception that's "off from the truth" and not your own?

What is truth, Boney?

 Page 27 of 42