Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 24, 2017, 6:17 pm
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 34 of 42
4.76
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7344 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 6, 2013, 12:54 pm - IP Logged

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.

"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."

To average $3000 a month income could mean wagering $72 a year to win $36,000 or $1,000,000,000 to win $1,000,036,000. What is considered an income is subjective, but whatever the amount is, it requires a player to win more than they wager. JKING asked if someone was winning more than they wagered, would they post their system on LP. Personally, I'd be more concerned the IRS is monitoring LP than state lottery officials. You were offended because JKING only offered a "yes" or "no" answers to his poll because you it excluded you from giving your usual Delusions of Grandeur reply.

"But it is definitely POSSIBLE."

Then the obvious should be to discuss the possibilities.

"It's conceivable that I may have said "all pick-3 players IN AGGREGATE will lose...

Some LP members believe they have a vested interest in how and when jackpot winners claim their winning tickets, spend and/or invest the winnings, but I've never read where any members claim responsibility for losses incured by other players.

Why do you believe all pick-3 players are responsible for losses of other pick-3 players?

Of course it's aggregate, but we're talking about just one player making enough in profits to show an income.

"Has anyone else ever heard me make the absurd claim that STACK47 claims I made?"

You said it's not just possible, but "definitely POSSIBLE" a player could make an income and explained that some players will lose and win more than others. If you know the 50% house edge applies to "all pick-3 players IN AGGREGATE" why even mention the house edge that doesn't apply the same to every individual player?

"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."

I've already gave my evaluation of the results and still questioning why you call it a simulation when it doesn't simulate real lottery play. Calling the values fictious players and even naming one, doesn't change that fact.


    United States
    Member #128790
    June 2, 2012
    5431 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:15 pm - 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.

    Just like Stack47 said, it's a phobia. I like the term "Mental Illness" much better. Anyone who believes they know 100% about any subject is delusional. Crazy

     

    I'd imagine there must be hundreds of thousands of strategies in existence, and Bonehead has tested them all. Amazing !

      helpmewin's avatar - dandy
      u$a
      United States
      Member #106665
      February 22, 2011
      19967 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:41 pm - IP Logged

      is anyone gaining or making a steady income from playing the lottery.

      is anyone making an income from lottery?

      yes Smiley

      Patriot

        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
        New Jersey
        United States
        Member #99032
        October 18, 2010
        1439 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:48 pm - 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%.

        Because that's what variance is...  It means that not everyone is going to lose at exactly 50% all of the time, and that that's normal.

         

        Which is why I said no BETTING SYSTEM outperforms the edge.  We never said that everyoe loses at 50% exactly, we said that's the edge, it's normal for some people to lose at different rates, and betting systems don't change the edge, just the amount of winners and losers and the amount they won and lost by (a few more winners, many more big losers, for most betting sytems.)  If you did the math, you'd find that the simulation lost at 50% overall, and that there were lots of losers and a few winners.  That's just random variance, what we call luck.

         

        Change the betting system, and you'll change the number of winners and losers, but you won't change the fact that the simulation will lose at 50%.  You'll be able to pick out one guy who only lost, say 20%, but you'll also be able to find a guy who lost 98%.  Add them all up, you'll get 50% of money wagered lost.  And who wins and who loses?  Well, that's decided by randomness, nothing else.

         

        Look, there's no point in me posting if you literally ignore what I say so that you can argue with me, and then make up "claims" that we made, that nobody ever did.

         

        Let me make this very clear.  NOBODY IS SAYING EVERYONE LOSES AT 50% EXACTLY.   That's stupid, and you keep ignoring our points about std. dev. and how it's normal to have random results that add up to the house edge.  You can pick it apart and only pay attention to certain data if you want, but that's a terrible way to think about things.

          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #99032
          October 18, 2010
          1439 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:49 pm - IP Logged

          Just like Stack47 said, it's a phobia. I like the term "Mental Illness" much better. Anyone who believes they know 100% about any subject is delusional. Crazy

           

          I'd imagine there must be hundreds of thousands of strategies in existence, and Bonehead has tested them all. Amazing !

          "Anyone who believes they know 100% about any subject is delusional"

           

          I guess you must be delusional, knowing that nobody would wager a lot of money if they kept losing gambling....  yeah there's NOBODY like that in this world....

            Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
            New Jersey
            United States
            Member #99032
            October 18, 2010
            1439 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 6, 2013, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

            "why even mention the house edge that doesn't apply the same to every individual player?"

             

            Here's the problem with the way you're thinking about the house edge.  You are being results oriented, which, for a professional gambler, will ultimately lead to their downfall.

             

            The house edge DOES apply equally to everyone, assuming the game has flat payouts.  That's because the game is (in the example of a P3 straight bet) a 1 in 1000 chance to win, and pays out as 500 for 1.  So a person who does win is getting shorted half of what fair odds are.  Since that is the nature of the edge, and it is applied whenever one is paid out, it is present for everyone who plays.  It is applied WHEN a person wins, sure, but the point is that it applies for 500 units for the house 1 out of 1000 plays.

             

            It's that simple.  The edge is different than the results.  And to find out how rare your results are, you can use std dev.  Before hand, you can even use std dev. and house edge to figure out how likely you are to win.  It's all calculable, but for some reason I think you'll contintue to claim that these are things we've failed to measure (we haven't.)

              SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
              Economy class
              Belgium
              Member #123700
              February 27, 2012
              4035 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 6, 2013, 2:10 pm - IP Logged

              is anyone making an income from lottery?

              yes Smiley

              The retailer.

                helpmewin's avatar - dandy
                u$a
                United States
                Member #106665
                February 22, 2011
                19967 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 6, 2013, 2:16 pm - IP Logged

                The retailer.

                Good one SergeM Thumbs Up

                Patriot


                  United States
                  Member #128790
                  June 2, 2012
                  5431 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 6, 2013, 2:17 pm - IP Logged

                  "Anyone who believes they know 100% about any subject is delusional"

                   

                  I guess you must be delusional, knowing that nobody would wager a lot of money if they kept losing gambling....  yeah there's NOBODY like that in this world....

                  Are you really that stupid? I mean seriously, your way of thinking really astounds me.

                  DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  That's why I said Peter MUST be winning because no one in their right mind would continue losing for 5 years. I love the poor attempt into twisting my words. You'll have to do better than that buddy boy.

                  In fact, you just made a total ass of yourself for LP members to see. The ones who read this thread know what I meant when I wrote that, except for you. Thanks for proving to the LP members what an Idiot you really are. Don't blame this one on me, you did it to yourself.

                  There's and old saying which I highly suggest you take seriously before writing anything else.

                  It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt"

                    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                    New Jersey
                    United States
                    Member #99032
                    October 18, 2010
                    1439 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 6, 2013, 2:40 pm - IP Logged

                    Just saying it's pretty hypocritical for you to claim I'd need to know everyone who gambles to know that none of their betting systems work, yet you don't even need to know this guy to know that he "MUST be winning."  Yeah, sure buddy, there is NO such thing is a gambling addict, there is no such thing as a person who loses thousands gambling.  Nobody would EVER do that.  Not even the guy who I regularly see spending 200-1000 dollars on the Pick 3 drawings....  He just doesn't exist, because in the words of onlymoney, "no one in their right mind would continue losing for 5 years."

                     

                    Didn't you say you're down on the lottery over 30 years?  I guess, according to your logic (not mine) you're not in your right mind?

                     

                    Haha, you know what, anybody with half a brain can see why that's hypocritical, and the fact that you respond with such anger usually indicates you know that you've been schooled.  Any time, in a debate, that one side resorts to the old "you'r stupid" it's usually safe to assume they've been beaten, and they don't have logic to use...


                      United States
                      Member #128790
                      June 2, 2012
                      5431 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 6, 2013, 2:58 pm - IP Logged

                      Just saying it's pretty hypocritical for you to claim I'd need to know everyone who gambles to know that none of their betting systems work, yet you don't even need to know this guy to know that he "MUST be winning."  Yeah, sure buddy, there is NO such thing is a gambling addict, there is no such thing as a person who loses thousands gambling.  Nobody would EVER do that.  Not even the guy who I regularly see spending 200-1000 dollars on the Pick 3 drawings....  He just doesn't exist, because in the words of onlymoney, "no one in their right mind would continue losing for 5 years."

                       

                      Didn't you say you're down on the lottery over 30 years?  I guess, according to your logic (not mine) you're not in your right mind?

                       

                      Haha, you know what, anybody with half a brain can see why that's hypocritical, and the fact that you respond with such anger usually indicates you know that you've been schooled.  Any time, in a debate, that one side resorts to the old "you'r stupid" it's usually safe to assume they've been beaten, and they don't have logic to use...

                      Sure there are gamblers who lose money, but they don't spend Tens of thousands every month for five long years. Do you realize how much money Peter would have to be spending on the P-4 alone, just to win those amounts?

                      I don't call you stupid because I lost and argument. I call you stupid because you are stupid. I gave you plenty of reasons how he's not a dumb gambler. I gave possiblities of him being rich and that didn't make much sense either.Maybe you should go back and read some of that.  I gave Jimbo plenty of reason why Peter isn't selling any books. I refuse to rewrite everything here 10 times because you don't bother reading them anyways.

                      Have you ever talked to the guy who is buying 200-1000 bucks worth of tickets? I bet you haven't. Yeah, he's not winning anything, just keeps throwing hundreds away for years on end. Now you know why I call you an idiot.

                      I'm actually above, not down, and I haven't been spending much in the last 3 years because my base pay was cut and other reasons. I spend maybe 2 bucks a week on p-3. Sometimes nothing. I won 250 bucks in early march, and I spent maybe 30 bucks of it so far. You see, If i start losing more than I win, after a certain time I stop or slow down tremendously, I don't keep going on and on until I lose my house, my car all the while for 5 freaking years. How can a gambler with a sickness keep going like that for 5 years, unless he's rich, and I already said why would anyone play if they are rich already? 

                      Like i wrote before, If Peter is a heavy gambler and is losing hundreds of thousand in the 5 year span, then he has to be rich, but If he's rich, why would he waste all that money? For a good time? If i wanted to have a good time wasting my money I'd go to Vegas, at least it's entertaining to see your money flushed down the toilet. But it's hard pressed for me to imagine someone who's rich to get a boner going down to the local gas station to get tickets, KNOWING he's just wasting it. Your logic is pure horse crap, sorry.

                        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                        New Jersey
                        United States
                        Member #99032
                        October 18, 2010
                        1439 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 6, 2013, 3:25 pm - IP Logged

                        "Have you ever talked to the guy who is buying 200-1000 bucks worth of tickets? I bet you haven't. Yeah, he's not winning anything, just keeps throwing hundreds away for years on end. Now you know why I call you an idiot."

                         

                        Actually I have.  Back when I thought like you.  In fact, he even told me he loses, but that playing has become a habit for him so he does it anyway.  He makes enough money off his business to subsidize his play.

                         

                        This is what makes you look ridiculous.  You think you can make ridiculous assumptions, and tell other people they'd have to know exactly what everyone everywhere does to make any claim.

                         

                        "If i wanted to have a good time"

                         

                        It doesn't really matter what you would do if you were rich if the discussion is about somebody else.

                         

                         

                        My logic is horse crap?  Haha how about yours.  Your logic is bascially "I wouldn't do things this way, so nobody does.  I think this could be true, so it's the only thing that makes sense.  If you think something different than me, you're stupid.  And I call you stupid because your stupid."

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99032
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 6, 2013, 3:29 pm - IP Logged

                          You know what, onlymoney, since it's your perogative to sit there calling people names instead of understanding the math, so how about this.  You stop responding to me, and I'll stop responding to you.

                           

                          All I have left to say is that you present your opinions as if you believe that your opinions are stone cold facts, but that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and that if they make any claim they are claiming to be an "expert on everything."  (Opinions being the likely-hood of one of those guys being a winner.)  And when we are talking about factual information, you just ignore it (factual information being math) on the basis that people have gotten math wrong before.

                           

                          If you have kids, I sincerely hope you treat them better than this.  If not, they are likely to grow up to resent you, as they are probably more knowledable than you on something, and if they happen to disagree with you, I hope you aren't oppressing them (as indicated by your comment that you can't take me by the ear and lock me in my room after I showed the math lmao)


                            United States
                            Member #128790
                            June 2, 2012
                            5431 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 6, 2013, 3:32 pm - IP Logged

                            Just saying it's pretty hypocritical for you to claim I'd need to know everyone who gambles to know that none of their betting systems work, yet you don't even need to know this guy to know that he "MUST be winning."  Yeah, sure buddy, there is NO such thing is a gambling addict, there is no such thing as a person who loses thousands gambling.  Nobody would EVER do that.  Not even the guy who I regularly see spending 200-1000 dollars on the Pick 3 drawings....  He just doesn't exist, because in the words of onlymoney, "no one in their right mind would continue losing for 5 years."

                             

                            Didn't you say you're down on the lottery over 30 years?  I guess, according to your logic (not mine) you're not in your right mind?

                             

                            Haha, you know what, anybody with half a brain can see why that's hypocritical, and the fact that you respond with such anger usually indicates you know that you've been schooled.  Any time, in a debate, that one side resorts to the old "you'r stupid" it's usually safe to assume they've been beaten, and they don't have logic to use...

                            I literally went back to April 8, 2008 to tally up how much Peter has won since then.

                            $346,220

                            How much do you think he had to spend to make that much in 5 years?

                            Especially when most of his wins were from P-4?  1 in 10,000 chance to win.

                            My estimation is, If he was making money, then not much If he has a system that works, most likely Steve Player's system.

                            If he doesn't have a system and is a problem gambler, I'd say close to, If not over 2 million bucks.

                            Most people with a gambling problem lose all their money in a short amount of time because they're trying to recoup their losses with heavier bets, such as in the Martingale system as one example. But I don't believe anyone would continue losing for 5 years. And who knows when it'll stop.

                            So if this keeps up 10 years from now, you think he's just some bum gambler losing? 2 million or more every five years?

                            Crazy


                              United States
                              Member #128790
                              June 2, 2012
                              5431 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 6, 2013, 3:37 pm - IP Logged

                              "Have you ever talked to the guy who is buying 200-1000 bucks worth of tickets? I bet you haven't. Yeah, he's not winning anything, just keeps throwing hundreds away for years on end. Now you know why I call you an idiot."

                               

                              Actually I have.  Back when I thought like you.  In fact, he even told me he loses, but that playing has become a habit for him so he does it anyway.  He makes enough money off his business to subsidize his play.

                               

                              This is what makes you look ridiculous.  You think you can make ridiculous assumptions, and tell other people they'd have to know exactly what everyone everywhere does to make any claim.

                               

                              "If i wanted to have a good time"

                               

                              It doesn't really matter what you would do if you were rich if the discussion is about somebody else.

                               

                               

                              My logic is horse crap?  Haha how about yours.  Your logic is bascially "I wouldn't do things this way, so nobody does.  I think this could be true, so it's the only thing that makes sense.  If you think something different than me, you're stupid.  And I call you stupid because your stupid."

                              I'm almost positive he wouldn't spend 2 million a year just to get his name on some winner's list. Sure, this guy of yours has an income that allows him to lose, but I'm sure he's not losing all the time. You're just to egotistic to realize someone may be smarter than you, like Peter. Get over it.

                              Without Peter as an example, you're still in denial that someone out there can have a system. Grow up laready. I know you're young, but don't act like a 5 year old.

                                 
                                Page 34 of 42