Welcome Guest
You last visited May 27, 2017, 3:54 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# is anyone making an income from lottery

Topic closed. 629 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Stack47.

 Page 29 of 42
New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 11:27 am - IP Logged

"You CAN do the math, even for short term sessions.  It's way too long for any person to reasonably do for no good reason, and it's long enough that even by combinatorial analysis a computer would take a long time, which is why we have computers run simulations."

I saw shooters roll a series of craps (2,3,12) on the come out roll and one lost all his money before he rolled a number. After three or four straight number, number, seven rolls, most of the Place bettors leave the table. How can billions of simulations help a player determine when a seven will be rolled?

"Each roll is an independent event.  And each "session" is an independent trial of those events."

That's a given and every player is betting the next roll will benefit them and enough winning outcomes to end the session with a profit.

"It doesn't matter if you chop it up into different timings, I can assure you that if you added up all your bets the amount of money you lose would be within a few STD DEVs of the house edge 99% of the time... and the math wins out in the end."

The house edge is only 0.004% when a player uses 100 times odds and just one extra winning bet can wipe that out.

"Math CAN tell you what to expect in the next session, which as you describe it, is 20-50 rolls."

There are several websites explaining how the game is played, the math, and the odds, but nobody can predict the exact order of the next 5 rolls, let alone 50. Anybody can say 5, 6, or 7 sevens should be rolled in the next 36 rolls, but math can't tell them when.

"You can keep saying it can't, but it absolutely can - and that's a fact."

Winning and losing is determined by the point repeating before a seven and that is called timing. Rolling 10 consecutive sevens the roll after the point is made won't hurt Place bettors. The strategy of playing Pass Line with two Come bets with odds instead of Place bets is based on not being hurt badly by number, seven or number, number, seven.

"Of course this is all pointless since you're just gonna say something false like "math can't tell me anything about the short term," as if you've ever actually studied this stuff."

I agree that over time the timing of when the seven shows will balance out, but you don't seem to understand betting strategies and money managment because a player can win enough in one winning session to cover any losses in the next 20.

"but you don't seem to understand betting strategies and money managment"

Since I've spent extensive time covering and studying this I'll just say LOL.

There is no betting strategy that will overcome turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.  Period.  I feel I shouldn't go any further, since you won't understand that sentence you'll just go on a tangent about some betting strategy which doesn't work anyway.

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 11:54 am - IP Logged

"but you don't seem to understand betting strategies and money managment"

Since I've spent extensive time covering and studying this I'll just say LOL.

There is no betting strategy that will overcome turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.  Period.  I feel I shouldn't go any further, since you won't understand that sentence you'll just go on a tangent about some betting strategy which doesn't work anyway.

I feel I shouldn't go any further

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 12:15 pm - IP Logged

I feel I shouldn't go any further

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 12:18 pm - IP Logged

"but you don't seem to understand betting strategies and money managment"

Since I've spent extensive time covering and studying this I'll just say LOL.

There is no betting strategy that will overcome turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.  Period.  I feel I shouldn't go any further, since you won't understand that sentence you'll just go on a tangent about some betting strategy which doesn't work anyway.

.  I feel I shouldn't go any further,

How can we continue getting schooled if the Bone Master doesn't "go any further" ???

Nova Scotia
Member #9934
December 27, 2004
895 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 2:25 pm - IP Logged

I want to make an income from the lottery yes ,I'd love that.. Maybe I will one of these days'

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 5:38 pm - IP Logged

"but you don't seem to understand betting strategies and money managment"

Since I've spent extensive time covering and studying this I'll just say LOL.

There is no betting strategy that will overcome turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.  Period.  I feel I shouldn't go any further, since you won't understand that sentence you'll just go on a tangent about some betting strategy which doesn't work anyway.

If I had the bankroll to fund my strategies and intuions, I would be ahead of the game on a regular basis. I wish I had a dollar whenever I saw an opportunity to bet heavy, cause my bank account would have a big smile on it's face.

Today was a prime example when all the pieces fit together well, but I'm broke right now, so I couldn't bet. Two really strong indicators showed the 93 front pair would show for Florida mid today, and I didn't play. The winner was 935.

Similar to what Stack47 wrote earlier, a trillion computer simulations couldn't predict how the Human intuition coupled with the strategies, and many other factors/variables, come to play when deciding how, when, and how much to bet.

Had I bet 50 dollars on that front pair, the profit would eclipse my losses for the next 30 plays. You say you have extensive knowledge on startegies. Maybe you're just using the wrong ones.

Again, on paper the math shows a Bee shouldn't be able to fly because of it's wings and body structure, but it does. Even math can be wrong If not applied correctly.

Eisnstein once said that 1+1 does NOT equal 2, and he was right. Depending what objects are attached to the numbers, they can change the outcome. No two apples are the same size atom for atom, so since one is bigger, the answer wouldn't be 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2, but rather 1 apple and 99.9999999999999% of an apple.

Computer algorithms don't have insight like Humans, even though scientists are getting closer everyday. And as far as strategies, betting techniques and the such, well, just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean there aren't a handful out there who have. Jimmy already attempted to throw theories on how Peter St. Pierre was really making income, but his pathetic description of him selling books after five years, that no one is buying cause they can't find them, lol,  sank like a 500 pound stone to the bottom of the Marianas Trench faster than you could say horse feathers.

Bottom line, just because you haven't seen a method, does NOT mean it doesn't exist, Period ! No Human has the capability to know everything at once. So for you to say "There is no betting strategy" as If you've met every single person on this planet who gambles, and spent time with them 24/7 for months on end, and then make such a bold conclusion.

Professional gamblers who are successful, study their games, they live it, breath it, and eat it for breakfast. It's akin to a science. And the word science means "the study of". This means that the learning never ends. Everytime new information comes along and passes the many tests, it replaces the old. So for you to conclude that your experiences in this field is the "end-all" to every imaginable type of betting strategy in existence, and that none of them work, well, I got news for you. You couldn't possible have covered all the bases. It simply isn't possible for one man to do, unless you posses some kind of super human abilities that you haven't shared, it's impossible for you to know.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 6:17 pm - IP Logged

If I had the bankroll to fund my strategies and intuions, I would be ahead of the game on a regular basis. I wish I had a dollar whenever I saw an opportunity to bet heavy, cause my bank account would have a big smile on it's face.

Today was a prime example when all the pieces fit together well, but I'm broke right now, so I couldn't bet. Two really strong indicators showed the 93 front pair would show for Florida mid today, and I didn't play. The winner was 935.

Similar to what Stack47 wrote earlier, a trillion computer simulations couldn't predict how the Human intuition coupled with the strategies, and many other factors/variables, come to play when deciding how, when, and how much to bet.

Had I bet 50 dollars on that front pair, the profit would eclipse my losses for the next 30 plays. You say you have extensive knowledge on startegies. Maybe you're just using the wrong ones.

Again, on paper the math shows a Bee shouldn't be able to fly because of it's wings and body structure, but it does. Even math can be wrong If not applied correctly.

Eisnstein once said that 1+1 does NOT equal 2, and he was right. Depending what objects are attached to the numbers, they can change the outcome. No two apples are the same size atom for atom, so since one is bigger, the answer wouldn't be 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2, but rather 1 apple and 99.9999999999999% of an apple.

Computer algorithms don't have insight like Humans, even though scientists are getting closer everyday. And as far as strategies, betting techniques and the such, well, just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean there aren't a handful out there who have. Jimmy already attempted to throw theories on how Peter St. Pierre was really making income, but his pathetic description of him selling books after five years, that no one is buying cause they can't find them, lol,  sank like a 500 pound stone to the bottom of the Marianas Trench faster than you could say horse feathers.

Bottom line, just because you haven't seen a method, does NOT mean it doesn't exist, Period ! No Human has the capability to know everything at once. So for you to say "There is no betting strategy" as If you've met every single person on this planet who gambles, and spent time with them 24/7 for months on end, and then make such a bold conclusion.

Professional gamblers who are successful, study their games, they live it, breath it, and eat it for breakfast. It's akin to a science. And the word science means "the study of". This means that the learning never ends. Everytime new information comes along and passes the many tests, it replaces the old. So for you to conclude that your experiences in this field is the "end-all" to every imaginable type of betting strategy in existence, and that none of them work, well, I got news for you. You couldn't possible have covered all the bases. It simply isn't possible for one man to do, unless you posses some kind of super human abilities that you haven't shared, it's impossible for you to know.

"If I had the bankroll to fund my strategies and intuions, I would be ahead of the game on a regular basis."

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.  Good Luck with that.  If you had bet heavy everytime you had an intuition, I'm almost certain you'd be even more in the hole.  Selection/Memory biases....

"You say you have extensive knowledge on startegies. Maybe you're just using the wrong ones."

Nope, I'm doing just fine.

"Again, on paper the math shows a Bee shouldn't be able to fly"

What?  I've never heard that, because it's absolutely untrue.  In fact the paper you quoted says "that was the wrong math, that's why it showed the wrong result."   And you're next sentence is equally illogical.  If you have 1 apple, plus 1 smaller apple you have 2 apples of different size.

" just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean there aren't a handful out there who have"

Optimal betting strategies have been figured out, in fact I outlined it above.  If you input the Pick 3's info, the answer the formula gives is to either be the house, or don't play.  Because playing the Pick 3 is negative expectation.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 6:24 pm - IP Logged

"Bottom line, just because you haven't seen a method, does NOT mean it doesn't exist, Period ! No Human has the capability to know everything at once. So for you to say "There is no betting strategy" as If you've met every single person on this planet who gambles, and spent time with them 24/7 for months on end, and then make such a bold conclusion.

Professional gamblers who are successful, study their games, they live it, breath it, and eat it for breakfast. It's akin to a science. And the word science means "the study of". This means that the learning never ends. Everytime new information comes along and passes the many tests, it replaces the old. So for you to conclude that your experiences in this field is the "end-all" to every imaginable type of betting strategy in existence, and that none of them work, well, I got news for you. You couldn't possible have covered all the bases. It simply isn't possible for one man to do, unless you posses some kind of super human abilities that you haven't shared, it's impossible for you to know."

People have been trying betting strategies for thousands of years.  Every study ever done on the subject showed that every strategy wins or loses at the same rate as game's edge.  Just as the math indicates.

It's not that it "hasn't been found yet" it's that it's actually been proven wrong.  So you can keep looking for proof, but until somebody else finds one, the assumption is it is impossible, because that has been PROVEN.  It's like me claiming that it is possible for a spaceship to simply travel faster than light.  If I wanted to make that claim, I'd be expected to prove it by the community.  They wouldn't simply say "well, we haven't tried everything" simply because it's scientifically established FACT that the speed of light is the speed limit.  Why do you think they were all so astonished when they thought they may have fired neutrinos faster than light?  They ran plenty of tests after that, because they suspected it was more likely to be an error than truth.  Of course, the people who did the test had to do it many more times and found it really was a computer's ERROR, just like how in your report, it's talking about the difference of the underlieing math being right for the question at hand, and doing the mathemtics right.

If you're supposed to find out how many people are in a classroom, and you see 5 rows with 5 students in them, you'd do 5*5, and get 25.  Your example is more like if you mistakenly did 4*5 and got 20.  You did your math right, but you constructed the math wrong.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 6:36 pm - IP Logged

I could go into lengthy detail about why betting systems don't change the edge, but I feel you want to cling your belief that some betting system will overcome the edge.  That being said, I will try one more time.

It's easy enough for me to picture in my head, having spent lots of time studying probability and the like.  The reality is that any betting strategy trades off risk in one place or another, but it never changes the edge expressed as a percentage.  Most betting systems actually lose more than flat betting, although this isn't immediately apparent to those using them.  Take Martingale as an example.  You'll win 1 unit most of the time, but every once in a while, will lose so big that you'll likely never catch back up.  And because of the risky nature or martingale, and because some people only employ it a couple of times, most people come out ahead with it.  The problem is that a handful of people lose HUGE using this strategy, and it more than makes up that edge.

There was a time a few years ago, where me and a friend were bored literally betting on a coin flip.  Since, at the time, I had an adequate gambling bankroll, I didn't mind betting whatever he wanted (since I knew he'd never bet more than 20 anyway.)  He chose to use martingale, and ended up losing 1, then 2, then 4 then 8, then 20 more.  At some point he just stopped, but the point is simple.  He was risking more and more to win less and less.  There's no edge in this game, so it doesn't really matter - but the point is the results are random and things like this randomly happen just as often as the odds dicate.

I also own a roulette wheel.  Now this specific thing has only happened once, but I was messing around with it, and rolled 12 Reds in a row.  Can you imagine a martingaler, and how much they'd have lost that one time?  1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512. 1024, 2048, 5192 - If there were real bets and someone was martingaling without limit, they'd have lost around 9K!  The odds of that occuring?  1 in 2213.  As you can see, the risk is huge!  And if you did the math, you'd find that the edge when martingale is exactly equal to 5.26% * money wagered, the same as if you used no betting system at all, except that martingale requires more money to go into play, therefore costing the user more an average.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 7:05 pm - IP Logged

"If I had the bankroll to fund my strategies and intuions, I would be ahead of the game on a regular basis."

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.  Good Luck with that.  If you had bet heavy everytime you had an intuition, I'm almost certain you'd be even more in the hole.  Selection/Memory biases....

"You say you have extensive knowledge on startegies. Maybe you're just using the wrong ones."

Nope, I'm doing just fine.

"Again, on paper the math shows a Bee shouldn't be able to fly"

What?  I've never heard that, because it's absolutely untrue.  In fact the paper you quoted says "that was the wrong math, that's why it showed the wrong result."   And you're next sentence is equally illogical.  If you have 1 apple, plus 1 smaller apple you have 2 apples of different size.

" just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean there aren't a handful out there who have"

Optimal betting strategies have been figured out, in fact I outlined it above.  If you input the Pick 3's info, the answer the formula gives is to either be the house, or don't play.  Because playing the Pick 3 is negative expectation.

So let me get this straight. You know better than Eisnstein now?

And you've seen every single system out there?

You are delusional princess. You need serious help.

I'd advise you to seek professional help immediately.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 7:11 pm - IP Logged

"Bottom line, just because you haven't seen a method, does NOT mean it doesn't exist, Period ! No Human has the capability to know everything at once. So for you to say "There is no betting strategy" as If you've met every single person on this planet who gambles, and spent time with them 24/7 for months on end, and then make such a bold conclusion.

Professional gamblers who are successful, study their games, they live it, breath it, and eat it for breakfast. It's akin to a science. And the word science means "the study of". This means that the learning never ends. Everytime new information comes along and passes the many tests, it replaces the old. So for you to conclude that your experiences in this field is the "end-all" to every imaginable type of betting strategy in existence, and that none of them work, well, I got news for you. You couldn't possible have covered all the bases. It simply isn't possible for one man to do, unless you posses some kind of super human abilities that you haven't shared, it's impossible for you to know."

People have been trying betting strategies for thousands of years.  Every study ever done on the subject showed that every strategy wins or loses at the same rate as game's edge.  Just as the math indicates.

It's not that it "hasn't been found yet" it's that it's actually been proven wrong.  So you can keep looking for proof, but until somebody else finds one, the assumption is it is impossible, because that has been PROVEN.  It's like me claiming that it is possible for a spaceship to simply travel faster than light.  If I wanted to make that claim, I'd be expected to prove it by the community.  They wouldn't simply say "well, we haven't tried everything" simply because it's scientifically established FACT that the speed of light is the speed limit.  Why do you think they were all so astonished when they thought they may have fired neutrinos faster than light?  They ran plenty of tests after that, because they suspected it was more likely to be an error than truth.  Of course, the people who did the test had to do it many more times and found it really was a computer's ERROR, just like how in your report, it's talking about the difference of the underlieing math being right for the question at hand, and doing the mathemtics right.

If you're supposed to find out how many people are in a classroom, and you see 5 rows with 5 students in them, you'd do 5*5, and get 25.  Your example is more like if you mistakenly did 4*5 and got 20.  You did your math right, but you constructed the math wrong.

Hey Einstein, news flash, keep using the word "Every" cause we know the research has included people who don't participate in your studies right? I'm pretty sure most of the ones who have a system that works don't exactly advertise it on CNN. Get your head out of your a\$\$. You don't know everything, and the people who did the studies haven't met the ones who have a system that work. Or are you saying they have ESP and know what they're thinking?

Man, I've never seen someone who's got their head so far up. Mr. know-it-all who has it ALL figured out. You're the last word on systems and strategies right?

I bet you're in your 20's, cause they've been known to know everything. Find that study on the internet, i bet that study proves me correct.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 7:19 pm - IP Logged

Einstein often spoke metaphorically, and you clearly missed it.

He also talked about how it's impossible for anyone to win at roulette without stealing from the croupier.... and he had a point there.

LMAO, though.  This is established fact, so unless someone disproves it, then I'll accept it as fact.  And understanding and utilizing math has seemed to work out for me in gambling, so I'll keep with what works.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 7:20 pm - IP Logged

I could go into lengthy detail about why betting systems don't change the edge, but I feel you want to cling your belief that some betting system will overcome the edge.  That being said, I will try one more time.

It's easy enough for me to picture in my head, having spent lots of time studying probability and the like.  The reality is that any betting strategy trades off risk in one place or another, but it never changes the edge expressed as a percentage.  Most betting systems actually lose more than flat betting, although this isn't immediately apparent to those using them.  Take Martingale as an example.  You'll win 1 unit most of the time, but every once in a while, will lose so big that you'll likely never catch back up.  And because of the risky nature or martingale, and because some people only employ it a couple of times, most people come out ahead with it.  The problem is that a handful of people lose HUGE using this strategy, and it more than makes up that edge.

There was a time a few years ago, where me and a friend were bored literally betting on a coin flip.  Since, at the time, I had an adequate gambling bankroll, I didn't mind betting whatever he wanted (since I knew he'd never bet more than 20 anyway.)  He chose to use martingale, and ended up losing 1, then 2, then 4 then 8, then 20 more.  At some point he just stopped, but the point is simple.  He was risking more and more to win less and less.  There's no edge in this game, so it doesn't really matter - but the point is the results are random and things like this randomly happen just as often as the odds dicate.

I also own a roulette wheel.  Now this specific thing has only happened once, but I was messing around with it, and rolled 12 Reds in a row.  Can you imagine a martingaler, and how much they'd have lost that one time?  1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512. 1024, 2048, 5192 - If there were real bets and someone was martingaling without limit, they'd have lost around 9K!  The odds of that occuring?  1 in 2213.  As you can see, the risk is huge!  And if you did the math, you'd find that the edge when martingale is exactly equal to 5.26% * money wagered, the same as if you used no betting system at all, except that martingale requires more money to go into play, therefore costing the user more an average.

Most betting systems actually lose more than flat betting.

So because in your studies most of them don't work, it means the rest of them don't work either huh?

You know, I willing to bet you're the type of person who will argue even If someone proved you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've known some in the past just like you. Their ego is so big that nothing will ever convince them. But I'm not here to convince you because even though I know a few people personally and not so personally but close enough who are winning on a regular basis, and doing quite well, but they won't share their secrets. But they've proven it to me with winning tickets. What I am trying to convey to you is that NO ONE CAN BE POSITIVELY BE SURE THERE IS NO SYSTEM OUT THERE. What part of that don't you get.

Let me write it big so you can't miss this.

THERE IS NO WAY YOU KNOW FOR SURE. YOU HAVEN'T MET EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO GAMBLES, GET IT? IF YOU DON'T GET IT, WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU GET?

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 7:22 pm - IP Logged

"I bet you're in your 20's, cause they've been known to know everything. Find that study on the internet, i bet that study proves me correct."

And I bet you're a pretty old guy whose gambled for a very long time, and thinks that he knows a lot about it simply because he's participated for so long.  Yeah, we can all steroetype, but the difference between me and you is who is going to end up ahead after 30 years of gambling.  One of us utilizes math, the other superstition.  And it's ok not to know the math, if you simply do these things for fun.  But if you seriously want to get into "is it profitable" then all there is is math. And it's very solid and clear.  In fact, I'm not even good at math and I understand it.  Because it's really not all that complex at all.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 4, 2013, 7:25 pm - IP Logged

So let me get this straight. You know better than Eisnstein now?

And you've seen every single system out there?

You are delusional princess. You need serious help.

I'd advise you to seek professional help immediately.

Way to ignore the post where I tried to summarize why betting systems don't change the edge, but change the risk.  I don't need to see what the betting system is, if it does nothing to change the odds of the game you're playing, then the edge is still there.  It doesn't matter how you change your bet, because you're changing a part of the equation which doesn't affect the edge.

Formula is Edge*Bet= Expected Value.

Changing it to Edge * X Bet only changes the answer to X * Expected Value, the Edge doesn't change.

This is why card counting works.  You change your bets BECAUSE the edge changes, not the other way around.

 Page 29 of 42