Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 3:06 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 33 of 42
4.76
PrintE-mailLink
Elizabeth03's avatar - cat anm.gif
Nova Scotia
Canada
Member #9934
December 27, 2004
884 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 5, 2013, 11:10 pm - IP Logged

what does that mean- strange thing's happen when you allow a platform to accomodate the unknown?

    rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
    Texas
    United States
    Member #55889
    October 23, 2007
    5588 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 5, 2013, 11:28 pm - IP Logged

    The Digit Man speaks:

    RL-RANDOMLOGIC says, "Making 1 to 10K a week is possible playing P-3 / P-4.  Some will say prove it first and they will believe but I don't need anyone else to believe me, I know it to be true."

    So, it looks like he's been holding out on us, and all of his disciples who put so much energy into his abandoned enterprise.

    I hope he has good security surrounding his money maker - who knows what lengths some people might go to to learn more about his $1K to $10K per week Pick-3/4 system.

    "I hope he has good security surrounding his money maker..."

    Somehow I'm thinking no you don't.

    Jimmy, this forum is for talking about and sharing ideas and strategies for playing lotteries. Everybody knows what you believe. Cool... that's fine. Now that we all know what you believe, give it a rest. Not everyone feels the same way as you. If you don't have anything to share, you don't have to say the same thing over and over. You just aren't relevant, and the crap you keep spouting isn't relevant.

    CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

    A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7297 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 6, 2013, 12:04 am - IP Logged

      I've mentioned standard deviation many times, and a couple months ago we had a lengthy discussion about it.

       

      I say that no betting system outperforms the house edge.  Because standard deviation (variance) applies, some people will win.  Those aren't contradictory claims, they are just different parts of the same mathemetical puzzle.

       

      If you define a betting strategy, a simulation can show the probabilities of different returns over time.  No system has ever performed better than the house edge over time, and shorter simulations show that they win just as often as the house edge and variance of the game dictate.  No betting system can change the edge, but they can change the variance.

      "I say that no betting system outperforms the house edge."

      And the house edge on pick-3 game paying 500 to 1 is 50%.

      "Because standard deviation (variance) applies, some people will win."

      Fifty of the lifetime pick-3 all states Predictors outperformed the 50% house edge.

      http://www.lotterypost.com/predictions-statistics-top.asp?t=50&s=&g=p3

      "Those aren't contradictory claims, they are just different parts of the same mathemetical puzzle."

      Your puzzle must be an optical illusion because it looks like at least fifty Predictors outperformed the house edge.

      "If you define a betting strategy, a simulation can show the probabilities of different returns over time."

      And Jimmy's five year simulation showed not only did some of his imaginary players outperform the house edge, his imaginary Uncle Craig made a nice profit.

      "No system has ever performed better than the house edge over time, and shorter simulations show that they win just as often as the house edge and variance of the game dictate."

      One of the Predictors wagered $338,339 and won $249,430 which is the equivalent of one of Jimmy's imaginary $5 per drawing players making the same bet for 185 years. Is 185 years too short of time for you to back up your very confusing opinions?

      "No betting system can change the edge, but they can change the variance."

      The house edge or the expected return percentage is an average that should be close to 50% and the variance is the fact some players will win more than 50% of their wagers and some players lose more than 50%.

      If you know there is a variance, how can you honestly say "no betting system outperforms the house edge"?


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 6, 2013, 12:45 am - IP Logged

        "I hope he has good security surrounding his money maker..."

        Somehow I'm thinking no you don't.

        Jimmy, this forum is for talking about and sharing ideas and strategies for playing lotteries. Everybody knows what you believe. Cool... that's fine. Now that we all know what you believe, give it a rest. Not everyone feels the same way as you. If you don't have anything to share, you don't have to say the same thing over and over. You just aren't relevant, and the crap you keep spouting isn't relevant.

        Rcbbuckeye,

        "Somehow I'm thinking no you don't."

        No I don't WHAT?

        "...this forum is for talking about and sharing ideas and strategies for playing lotteries."

        This is the Lottery Discussion forum.  This "Thread" is a question.  Myself and several others answered the question in the negative, and gave our reasons.

        "If you don't have anything to share,..."

        I do have something to share, and I've been sharing it.

        "...you don't have to say the same thing over and over."

        If you meant I "shouldn't" have to say the same things over and over, I agree.  Look back over this thread and, with an open mind, determine who has been the most repetitious and relentless in their engaging and challenging of those with an opposing view. (Keep in mind that I'm often responding to 3-5 attackers.)  Pay particular attention to the LP replicant called Stack47 who not only relentlessly repeats himself, but ceaselessly engages in obfuscation of the posts he quotes.  And then, observe which group has been in attack mode, using crude, gutter language on multiple occassions.  You REALLY should ask yourself what motivates these vehement mouth pieces.

        "You just aren't relevant, and the crap you keep spouting isn't relevant."

        What definition of "relevant" are you relying on for this remark?

        --Jimmy4164


          United States
          Member #93947
          July 10, 2010
          2180 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 6, 2013, 12:54 am - IP Logged

          If my intuition was better with the lottery numbers- I'd be a multimillionaire right now!"

          I like your insight.  Smile

          I hope you win.

            Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
            Zeta Reticuli Star System
            United States
            Member #30470
            January 17, 2006
            10345 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:12 am - IP Logged

            Stack47,

            "One of the Predictors wagered $338,339 and won $249,430...."

            I'm not sure if that was you or you quoting someone but all that tells me is that the predicor is stuck $88,909 (make believe money I take it). Am I missing something?

            Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

            Lep

            There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:19 am - IP Logged

              Stack47,

              "One of the Predictors wagered $338,339 and won $249,430...."

              I'm not sure if that was you or you quoting someone but all that tells me is that the predicor is stuck $88,909 (make believe money I take it). Am I missing something?

              Good point Coin Toss.  Apparently,  since in this instance the loss was only 26%, instead of 50%, the house edge, Stack47 believes that my claim that Variance in Random Processes can account for winners has been invalidated.

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7297 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 6, 2013, 9:24 am - IP Logged

                Stack47,

                "One of the Predictors wagered $338,339 and won $249,430...."

                I'm not sure if that was you or you quoting someone but all that tells me is that the predicor is stuck $88,909 (make believe money I take it). Am I missing something?

                Boney said "I say that no betting system outperforms the house edge." and if the pick-3 house edge is calculated as the difference between the odds against winning and the payoff odds, the house edge is about 50%. I'm assuming that means over time or a large number of pick-3 wagers and 338,339 is a large amount of wagers. If the house edge is 50%, a 73.72% win ratio does outperform the house edge.

                My contention is the house edge is what the house should expect to win over a long period of time from all bets. In the game of Craps after a winning outcome, some players will increase their bets and their winning percentage is the amount they leave the table with divided by the amount they started with. A $5 Line bet with double odds could evolve into a $100 Line bet with double odds. They might start with $200 and leave with hundreds or more likely start with $200 and leave with nothing though hundreds worth of chips may have passed through their hands.

                Some players will lose almost 100% while other players will win substantially more than what they started with. The house edge is the difference between what the house collected from losing players and paid out to winning players. In the games like pick-3 with a 50% house edge, the same principle IE the losing bets pay for the winning bets is applied.

                If a steady income is defined as an average of $3000 a month, a player could wager $6 a month, win 50,000% more than they wagered, or wager $30,000 and win 10% more than they wagered. The question here is anyone (at least one player out of millions) making a living from lottery [winnings]. And I believe it's possible at least one player is.


                  United States
                  Member #116268
                  September 7, 2011
                  20244 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 6, 2013, 9:47 am - IP Logged

                   No system has ever performed better than the house

                  Boney knows for a fact that NO system has performed. By some super-human knowledge he knows this to be a fact. Amazing. How do you accomplish such a feat?

                  Yeah, Boney is real creepy that way. He is starting to take on that monotone demonic incantation style mantra that Jammy was using for a while. This thread was created for their creep show act. What a waste of space.

                    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                    mid-Ohio
                    United States
                    Member #9
                    March 24, 2001
                    19817 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 6, 2013, 10:27 am - IP Logged

                    Instead of guessing about what is possible, why not look at the outcomes on the prediction board.  It's all imaginary but every predictions and wins were real so the results should be close to reality.

                     * 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
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 6, 2013, 10:57 am - IP Logged

                      Good point Coin Toss.  Apparently,  since in this instance the loss was only 26%, instead of 50%, the house edge, Stack47 believes that my claim that Variance in Random Processes can account for winners has been invalidated.

                      "Apparently,  since in this instance the loss was only 26%, instead of 50%, the house edge, Stack47 believes that my claim that Variance in Random Processes can account for winners has been invalidated."

                      My example was clearly a rebuttal to Boney's claim "I say that no betting system outperforms the house edge." and showed it's possible a large amount of wagers have outperformed the 50% house edge. And since I was replying to Boney's post " Because standard deviation (variance) applies, some people will win.", my comments on variance were directed to Boney's statement and NOT to your Delusional of Grandeur claim.

                      Simply put not all the replies on this or any other thread are directed solely to you.

                      The variance (amounts won vs amounts lost) is why the house edge isn't exactly 50% and why a $338,339 wager can "win" more than 50% of the wager. The fact that only four all state pick-3 lifetime predictors have won more than they lost is why I'm not saying it's probable some players are making a steady income, but saying it's possible at least one player out of millions is because it's impossible to prove at least one isn't. Another lottery game with the same 50% house edge is pick-4 and two predictors have wagered over $34,000 lifetime and are showing a profit.

                      If you find my remakes redundant, stop finding new ways to make the same old ridiculous claim "all pick-3 players will lose 50% of their wagers because the house edge is 50%.

                        Avatar
                        Kentucky
                        United States
                        Member #32652
                        February 14, 2006
                        7297 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 6, 2013, 11:26 am - IP Logged

                        Instead of guessing about what is possible, why not look at the outcomes on the prediction board.  It's all imaginary but every predictions and wins were real so the results should be close to reality.

                        I tried doing that by showing if pick-3 games paid the winnings by the true odds, the top fifty lifetime predictors would all show a profit. I thought it was obvious it was possible to outperform the 50% of the true odds pick-3 games pay off even if that means playing at a loss. If the question is "can they show a profit", the prediction board shows a much smaller percentage, but still making it possible for at least one player to make an income from lottery play.

                        If a player can average 120.76% lifetime playing the pick-3, they could wager on average $3019 a month to win an average $2500 per month. If they can only get 101%, they could still average $2500 a month by wagering considerably more. When one bet can get a 50,000% profit, it doesn't make it impossible to average 120.76%. Unlikely of course, but not impossible.

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7297 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 6, 2013, 11:29 am - IP Logged

                          Yeah, Boney is real creepy that way. He is starting to take on that monotone demonic incantation style mantra that Jammy was using for a while. This thread was created for their creep show act. What a waste of space.

                          It's a phobia; the fear of winning the lottery.


                            United States
                            Member #93947
                            July 10, 2010
                            2180 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 6, 2013, 11:40 am - IP Logged

                            "Apparently,  since in this instance the loss was only 26%, instead of 50%, the house edge, Stack47 believes that my claim that Variance in Random Processes can account for winners has been invalidated."

                            My example was clearly a rebuttal to Boney's claim "I say that no betting system outperforms the house edge." and showed it's possible a large amount of wagers have outperformed the 50% house edge. And since I was replying to Boney's post " Because standard deviation (variance) applies, some people will win.", my comments on variance were directed to Boney's statement and NOT to your Delusional of Grandeur claim.

                            Simply put not all the replies on this or any other thread are directed solely to you.

                            The variance (amounts won vs amounts lost) is why the house edge isn't exactly 50% and why a $338,339 wager can "win" more than 50% of the wager. The fact that only four all state pick-3 lifetime predictors have won more than they lost is why I'm not saying it's probable some players are making a steady income, but saying it's possible at least one player out of millions is because it's impossible to prove at least one isn't. Another lottery game with the same 50% house edge is pick-4 and two predictors have wagered over $34,000 lifetime and are showing a profit.

                            If you find my remakes redundant, stop finding new ways to make the same old ridiculous claim "all pick-3 players will lose 50% of their wagers because the house edge is 50%.

                            Stack47 says,

                            "If a steady income is defined as an average of $3000 a month, a player could wager $6 a month, win 50,000% more than they wagered, or wager $30,000 and win 10% more than they wagered."

                            True.  (Although this would be tough to do every month with $6 in a Pick-3  Smile  )

                            He also says,  "The question here is anyone (at least one player out of millions) making a living from lottery [winnings]. And I believe it's possible at least one player is."

                            And he would be absolutely RIGHT!

                            Where he would be ABSOLUTELY WRONG is in his assumption about HOW this might happen.  First of all, he didn't mention for how many contiguous months he thinks his $30,000 per month Pick-3 player will succeed, but that's OK.  We'll forgive him for that.  Any Pick-3 player who wins $33,000 or more in just one month on the purchase of $30,000 in tickets did VERY well.  But it is definitely POSSIBLE.  However, this winner is winning IN SPITE OF THEMSELVES, and in spite of any betting strategies, or systems, or methods, they might employ.  The VARIANCE in the random processes of the ball machines provided them the opportunity to be the LUCKY winner.

                            Late News!  Just in, while writing this reply...

                            Stack47 says to me, "If you find my remakes redundant, stop finding new ways to make the same old ridiculous claim "all pick-3 players will lose 50% of their wagers because the house edge is 50%."

                            It's conceivable that I may have said "all pick-3 players IN AGGREGATE will lose..."  Has anyone else ever heard me make the absurd claim that STACK47 claims I made? 

                            --Jimmy4164

                            p.s.  Stack47 has been beating his head against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for over 30 years, and I'm afraid it's taking its toll on him.  (That's at least since 1981.)

                            p.s.s.  For someone who rejects my simulations of 25,000 people betting $5 per day for 5 years in a Pick-3, he's really gone out on a limb with his latest desperate attempt at saving face.

                              SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
                              Economy class
                              Belgium
                              Member #123700
                              February 27, 2012
                              4035 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 6, 2013, 11:50 am - IP Logged

                              Instead of guessing about what is possible, why not look at the outcomes on the prediction board.  It's all imaginary but every predictions and wins were real so the results should be close to reality.

                              Close to reality

                              The low payouts are mostly real, but for the higher ranks this can be unreal because when there are more high rank winners, the payout is lower. In consequence it also has an influence on the payouts of the next drawings. You would also have to add the paid tickets to the income of the lottery in question.

                              The scoring is probably an accurate mesure, but many players here won't play their real tickets on LP. Pecos won twice second price on LP thanks to my posts, but did he in real life? Only one second price officially was paid out for that drawing. I posted a good startpoint for 5 to 6 on 6 for NY Sweet Million, did anyone care or play this? 11 numbers containing 5 right, add one, and it was 1, it would have been 6/12.

                              Move your eyes to the left, it says winner 5/6 and 8/10, payout in real life. The 5 was a 5 + C for 6/42 with complimentary number. I don't talk about the many 5/10 for 6/42.

                                 
                                Page 33 of 42