Welcome Guest
You last visited December 11, 2016, 8:42 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 31 of 42

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 1:16 am - IP Logged

Stack47,

"When did you prove there is no strategy that can produce an income from lottery winnings?"

Boney526 has done a great job of this on multiple occasions, but since you still don't seem to understand, I'll give it another shot.  In general, it's difficult to prove the NON-existence of something.  But in the case of simplistic models like well defined lottery games, it's more like asserting the OBVIOUS, than a proof.  E.G., the Expected Value of a straight \$1 win ticket in a Pick-3 game in most states is \$0.50.  This is true because the probability of winning is 1/1000 and the payoff if you win is \$500.  The rules and payoff schedules of lottery games are all MOST people need as PROOF.

"You actually prove it's possible to bet \$5 on five pick-3 QPs every drawing for five years and show a nice profit."

You are absolutely right - POSSIBLE.  Boney gave you all you SHOULD need to understand how the Variance of these random processes allows this to happen.  What you overlook is the fact that the handful of fictitious winners in my simulation found themselves winners through no effort of their own other than buying Random Tickets for the Random Drawings.  There was no strategy or method used.  Please read this paragraph again.

If you're going to make the ludicrous claim that you are a licensed psychologist, you really should bone up on their terminology.  WHAT DO YOU OR DID YOU DO FOR A LIVING aside from hang out in casinos, use Pick-3 software since 1981 and since 2006 try to convince others here that mathematicians suffer from Delusions of Grandeur?

A simpler question might just be, "What is your purpose here?"

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 8:49 am - IP Logged

There are many ways to do that.

The most likely is that he just gambles a lot of money on it, and you aren't seeing his losses.  There's one independently wealthy guy at my local convenient store who regularly spends 100s on the Pick 3 on a single draw.  I'm sure he's had some days where he's won big, too.  Although I'm also sure there's many more days where he loses big.

Listen you little twerp, please don't respond to my posts. You're a certified moron who doesn't get it, and never will.

No one in their right mind would continually lose money for 5 years. I don't care how much of a gambler they are. Especially when the losses would total into hundreds of thousands.

I have a better idea, let the critical thinkers do the thinking around here. Isn't there a romper room event you have to attend somewhere?

Now go beat it kid. Go do your homework and don't forget to clean your room.

What a fu**ing moron !!

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 10:27 am - IP Logged

Yep, when logic fails, it's best to call people names!  That way you can seem big in front of all you buddies!  I love how it's the people who post upwards of 10-20 times a day who always break down into arguments they can't keep up with before falling into immature name calling.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 10:33 am - IP Logged

Yep, when logic fails, it's best to call people names!  That way you can seem big in front of all you buddies!  I love how it's the people who post upwards of 10-20 times a day who always break down into arguments they can't keep up with before falling into immature name calling.

Very funny Bone, you and your "buddies" were calling me a "buffoon" long before I made up any pet names for you Stooges....... Later you felt at liberty to call me a liar and a troll, so why all the crying now?

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 10:35 am - IP Logged

I don't think I ever called you a buffoon, and if and when I called you a liar, it's because you lied about something I said.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 10:35 am - IP Logged

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 10:36 am - IP Logged

How mature of you.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 10:39 am - IP Logged

You are a cry baby Boney. No matter how well versed you are at the art of denial, its clear for everyone else to see.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 11:03 am - IP Logged

I don't think I ever called you a buffoon, and if and when I called you a liar, it's because you lied about something I said.

This is why you come across as such a moron Boney. You may not have physically typed the word "Buffoon" on your keybord but you made it abundenty clear that you were in total agreement with Jamyy when he said it, so now Im should have the utmost respect for you over a technicalluty that you didnt "call" me that?

Like I said, very funny Boney. How did you become so anal? I have more respect for Jammy because he DID call me a Baffoon and Im not offended and a cry baby over it like you are. People are here to give opinions Bone, you should really try to get over it if your going to hang around here. Is this post long enough to meet with your approval? I know its not 16 paragrafhs but Im longing for you approval Boney, Cant you tell?

u\$a
United States
Member #106665
February 22, 2011
19911 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 1:19 pm - IP Logged

You are a cry baby Boney. No matter how well versed you are at the art of denial, its clear for everyone else to see.

Let it Snow

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 1:51 pm - IP Logged

Yep, when logic fails, it's best to call people names!  That way you can seem big in front of all you buddies!  I love how it's the people who post upwards of 10-20 times a day who always break down into arguments they can't keep up with before falling into immature name calling.

It's interesting that OnlyMoney inappropriately ("Listen you little twerp,,,")  exploded above in response to your matter of fact post that merely stated a plausible explanation for how these "big winners" might be attaining their fame.  Remember this.  When they lose it, it's a pretty good bet you've hit a nerve, even if they aren't aware of it consciously.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 2:59 pm - IP Logged

It's interesting that OnlyMoney inappropriately ("Listen you little twerp,,,")  exploded above in response to your matter of fact post that merely stated a plausible explanation for how these "big winners" might be attaining their fame.  Remember this.  When they lose it, it's a pretty good bet you've hit a nerve, even if they aren't aware of it consciously.

That's how I usually react to little kids who just don't get it. The only difference is that I can't physically take bonehead by the ear and lock him in his room for a time out for being such a dumbass.

I didn't lose anything. Both of you, especially you with your rediculous attempt at how Peter is raking in thousands every month, have yet to explain satisfactorily how he's accomplishing this. You say he's selling a book, waiting five years or more before he's publishing it, and bonehead says he's an avid gambler who is wasting tens of thousands every year for five years. No one in their right mind would do either of those two scenarios.

You both need to be in a mental institution. And you call yourselves critical thinkers? Laughable at best.

How in the world can either of you really believe someone, anyone, would spend 5 years wasting huge amounts of money money just because they're a bad gambler? He'd have to be the most inept gambler on planet earth. Even the dumbest gambler losing thousands a month would surely give up after about 2 or 3 months, TOPS!   Or, end up like most, by losing their house, cars, family members, and probably end up as an alcoholic living the streets, maybe get help and starting over. On the other hand, Peter must so rich that he has nothing better to do with his life than to literally throw hundreds of thousands down the toilet, when he could be doing other things with that money. People don't become that rich without some kind of disciplne which made them rich to begin with. If Peter is that freaking rich, he wouldn't need to make money. Do you see how rediculous all these scenarios are?

Surely rich people and celebrities go to casinos and blow a few grand from time to time. They're not there to make money, but to have fun, especially in Vegas. But they don't stay in Vegas for five years blowing thousand every month, THEY FREAKING LEAVE, AND GO BACK HOME.

Or, how in the world can either of you claim anyone would wait 5 plus freaking years making questionable transactions by buying winning tickets, then claiming them as theirs, all the while dealing with all the hassles of this red tape, hard work, just to sell some "how to" book some 5 plus years later. Then the cost of a huge advertising campaign that would have to cover the costs of paying the taxes on those tickets he purchased, and all this work involved just to sell books to a few lottery enthusiasts who MAY buy the book. You two must be on drugs, OR, need to go on medication. Seriously, get help.

Is there a doctor in the house?

I guarantee that if I show irrefutable proof that I was making 5 grand a month free and clear, you two clowns would still try to discount my claims. If I uploaded a pic of my winning tickets, you'd claim they were photo shopped. If I siad I said I have proof of my wins by public records at the lottery office listing me as a winner, you'd say I was purchasing winning tickets to sell books 5 years from now. Or, you'd come up with another dumbass reason like, I bribed the lottery official at my local office, and pay him royalties from my book 5 years from now. If I showed you my bank account deposits, you'd say, well, you have a rich uncle and it's not really your money, just that you've convinced your uncle to go through with this charade just to prove to those two clowns on LP that you're really making money, that'll show em !

Both of your egos are so high up your anally tight asses, that nothing will convince you. Just because the math doesn't seem to allow a human to win may be true, but what you two have to do to get your heads out of your asses is to wake up and realize that someone, or a handful have found a way to beat the lottery, NOT by beating the math, but by leveraging their bets coupled with strategies UNKNOWN to you and me, in such a way as to consitently win. When I say consistently, I don't mean everytime, but enough to stay out of the red, and occasionally bet really heavy when certain indicators directs them to, and make a living off of it. You say it's impossible, but as Stack said, you haven't proved it. The math alone is NOT proof by itself. The proof is that neither you or bonehead has seen the system that Peter has, so you can't  examine it and DISPROVE it's worth. Until then, your math is just that, math.

What I propose, is that no matter how unbeatable something seems to be, you ALWAYShave to leave wiggle room. YOU HAVE TO! There is no black and white in life. No human knows what everything there is to know, and how it is, or it's make up. NO ONE, NOT YOU, NOT ME, NOT BONEHEAD, OR THE POPE.

How many people in history have said "IT CAN"T BE DONE"? I can write a book on just that alone. And how many of them were WRONG?

So get off your high horses and realize you don't know everything, you haven't met every gambler in the world, and you are not some Super human with super abilities who KNOWS for a FACT that someone, just even one person out there hasn't done it. THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD POSSIBLY KNOW. PERIOD!

You say simple math shows it's impossible for someone to beat the p-4 and p-3 on a regular basis. And simple math shows a Bee can't fly either, but when advanced math is used, the Bee is able to fly. So much for your basic math. Get over yourselves, you are not geniuses. You don't know every single person on this planet personally, so there is NO WAY you know.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7325 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 4:08 pm - IP Logged

"I understand it, but you can't prove "There is no betting strategy"."

It has been proven that no betting system outperforms the house edge...  It's not my fault if you ignore that.  I don't have to prove something that's accepted by the entire industry and community that's studied the math.  In other words - I'm not the one making a contradictory claim to what has been established, so I don't have to prove it (it's already been proven.)

"according to Boney526 it's impossible to win playing lottery games"

Well I never said that, although I did say it's impossible to overcome the edge.

Everything else you said is mathemetically nonsense so I won't respond.  I'm just showing you with how you are flawed in your thinking on these two statements....  The first is wrong, because it has been proven, and the second is wrong because I never said that.

"It has been proven that no betting system outperforms the house edge..."

The house edge is based on the huge volume of play and not on an individual play. It's an average based on all the bets. If all the bets are \$1 million and the house edge is 5%, the house should win on average \$50,000 and the combined losses of all the players should be on average \$50,000. You're explaining "the house edge" as if it's written in stone every player must lose \$50 for every \$1000 they bet. If one player out of 1000 bets \$1000 and walks from the table with \$3000, they outperformed the house edge. If the house still averaged 5%, it means 40 other players lost on average \$50 more.

"I don't have to prove something that's accepted by the entire industry and community that's studied the math."

For the same reason one casino doesn't expect every player that bets \$1000 to lose exactly \$50, the entire casino industry doesn't expect every player that bets \$1000 to lose exactly \$50. They expect to win about 5% of all bets and factor in some players will actually win more than 5% and some players will lose more than 5%.

The industry understands it's an average and you mistakenly believe it's proof not one player can win using a sound betting strategy.

"Well I never said that, although I did say it's impossible to overcome the edge."

If what your saying, it's impossible for any player to overcome the house edge is fact than it should be equally impossible for any player to lose more than the house edge.

"Everything else you said is mathemetically nonsense so I won't respond."

Then simply prove a 5% house edge is not an expected average and prove every player will lose exactly \$50 for every \$1000 they bet.

"The first is wrong, because it has been proven"

Until you show me the proof "no betting system outperforms the house edge", I'll just assume your proof is in the fantasy land between your ears.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 6:28 pm - IP Logged

"It has been proven that no betting system outperforms the house edge..."

The house edge is based on the huge volume of play and not on an individual play. It's an average based on all the bets. If all the bets are \$1 million and the house edge is 5%, the house should win on average \$50,000 and the combined losses of all the players should be on average \$50,000. You're explaining "the house edge" as if it's written in stone every player must lose \$50 for every \$1000 they bet. If one player out of 1000 bets \$1000 and walks from the table with \$3000, they outperformed the house edge. If the house still averaged 5%, it means 40 other players lost on average \$50 more.

"I don't have to prove something that's accepted by the entire industry and community that's studied the math."

For the same reason one casino doesn't expect every player that bets \$1000 to lose exactly \$50, the entire casino industry doesn't expect every player that bets \$1000 to lose exactly \$50. They expect to win about 5% of all bets and factor in some players will actually win more than 5% and some players will lose more than 5%.

The industry understands it's an average and you mistakenly believe it's proof not one player can win using a sound betting strategy.

"Well I never said that, although I did say it's impossible to overcome the edge."

If what your saying, it's impossible for any player to overcome the house edge is fact than it should be equally impossible for any player to lose more than the house edge.

"Everything else you said is mathemetically nonsense so I won't respond."

Then simply prove a 5% house edge is not an expected average and prove every player will lose exactly \$50 for every \$1000 they bet.

"The first is wrong, because it has been proven"

Until you show me the proof "no betting system outperforms the house edge", I'll just assume your proof is in the fantasy land between your ears.

You never seem to tire of relentlessly engaging in the obfuscation of sound reasoning.  What a shame.

Apparently, you're not going to tell us what field you were/are in, and what your purpose here is.

I think the thought of going out and looking for a REAL job terrifies you, doesn't it, "Stack47?"

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 5, 2013, 6:59 pm - IP Logged

"It has been proven that no betting system outperforms the house edge..."

The house edge is based on the huge volume of play and not on an individual play. It's an average based on all the bets. If all the bets are \$1 million and the house edge is 5%, the house should win on average \$50,000 and the combined losses of all the players should be on average \$50,000. You're explaining "the house edge" as if it's written in stone every player must lose \$50 for every \$1000 they bet. If one player out of 1000 bets \$1000 and walks from the table with \$3000, they outperformed the house edge. If the house still averaged 5%, it means 40 other players lost on average \$50 more.

"I don't have to prove something that's accepted by the entire industry and community that's studied the math."

For the same reason one casino doesn't expect every player that bets \$1000 to lose exactly \$50, the entire casino industry doesn't expect every player that bets \$1000 to lose exactly \$50. They expect to win about 5% of all bets and factor in some players will actually win more than 5% and some players will lose more than 5%.

The industry understands it's an average and you mistakenly believe it's proof not one player can win using a sound betting strategy.

"Well I never said that, although I did say it's impossible to overcome the edge."

If what your saying, it's impossible for any player to overcome the house edge is fact than it should be equally impossible for any player to lose more than the house edge.

"Everything else you said is mathemetically nonsense so I won't respond."

Then simply prove a 5% house edge is not an expected average and prove every player will lose exactly \$50 for every \$1000 they bet.

"The first is wrong, because it has been proven"

Until you show me the proof "no betting system outperforms the house edge", I'll just assume your proof is in the fantasy land between your ears.

Standard deviation.  It's easy to put words in my mouth and if you can ignore most of the stuff I've argued, now isn't it.

I chose to leave it at that, because I've explained many times before how it is NOT like what you are describing me as saying.  So basically, you're lying about my arguement.  Or at very least, you are not reading it, and putting words in my mouth.

I NEVER said anything like no player can win using a betting strategy, I said betting strategies don't change the house edge, they just change the risk you leverage.

The assumption by many people is they can beat the edge by using betting systems.  I'm saying that's not true.

Try not to read that as "it's impossible to win" because I never said that.  EVER.

 Page 31 of 42