Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 9:06 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 6 of 42
4.76
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 11, 2013, 11:02 pm - IP Logged

Thanks. Good luck to you too.

De nada.


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 11, 2013, 11:15 pm - IP Logged

    Have you ever taken the opportunity to read my signature line? Three simple words I know, so it could easily go over your head as it is not some in depth analysis on some abstract mathematical concept that refutes the obvious. Secret? I cannot speak for any one else but I am not trying to uncover any secrets. I am simply experimenting with a variety of methods and hybrids of methods to win a jackpot.  I will not be embarrassed to show up in Stockholm if I won by a quick pick. I just want to win. If the world in the end calls my methods luck, who gives a da--? Wink

    You have a good attitude.  Good luck!

    And if you win I hope you use the money to do something that gets you an invitation to Oslo.

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7322 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 12, 2013, 11:53 am - IP Logged

      Stack47,

      When you say, "The house uses probability to determine how much they should win over time and with pick-3 games it's about 50% of ticket sales. Because your math is half-baked and incomplete, you fail to see the house is also paying out 50% of ticket sales in prizes.", I have no choice but to disagree.  You apparently forgot about this older post of mine:

      https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/2850041

      "The WINNERS!  Yes, randomness produces winners, even over long periods of time."

      --Jimmy4164

      p.s.  Just what is it that compels you to waste your time trying to debunk my scientific approach when you could be devoting that time to picking your winners?  This thread was not set up to develop systems.

      "Just what is it that compels you to waste your time trying to debunk my scientific approach"

      It's my time and my choice on how I spend it even if that includes commenting and laughing at an idiotic speculation.

      "25,000 players buying Five(5) $1.00 Straight Quick Pick tickets per day for Five(5) Years, or 1825 Days."

      You probably couldn't find 100 real Pick-3 players that would purchase one $1 straight QP ticket in every drawing for the next 100 drawings, but incredibly you believe 25,000 would purchase five $1 QPs in every drawing for five years. After 120 drawings with no wins and out $600, how many real players would continue playing using your method, knowing the most they can win is $500?

      And speaking of wasting someone's time, your "Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words" failed to show the total amount of winnings. Do your "scientific approaches" usually require the readers to waste their time calculating how much the 35 $500 winners won, then adding that to the 99 $1000 winners and then continuing to multiple and add each row to get the total won so they can analyse the results?

      It's obvious the 25,000 fictional QP players wager $125,000 every drawing but where is the data that shows the three digit number QP distribution?

      Are we suppose to guess that 125 of each of the 1000 possible three digit numbers were distributed among the 125,000 QPs or should we speculate because real lottery terminals randomly distribute QPs and some of the three digit numbers were on more than 125 tickets and some on less?

      Where are your drawing results so we can compare them to results of real pick-3 drawings?

      The objective of your "approach" was made clear when you named one of your fictional players (Old Uncle Craig LMAO!) and gave your analyse of the fictional win. Because you omitted the critical data needed to determine if your "approach" closely matched real pick-3 games with real QP distribution, your "approach" is not even close to "scientific". The words "scientific approach" shouldn't even be in the same post with "25,000 players buying Five(5) $1.00 Straight Quick Pick tickets per day for Five(5) Years, or 1825 Days".

      If you have 24,999 other crazy old uncles you can book your own pick-3 game.


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 12, 2013, 1:04 pm - IP Logged

        Well Stack47, it looks as though we've come full circle.  It's been 2 years, almost to the day, since I tried to introduce you to the power of Monte Carlo Simulation Techniques.  But based on what you wrote today...

        "You probably couldn't find 100 real Pick-3 players that would purchase one $1 straight QP ticket in every drawing for the next 100 drawings, but incredibly you believe 25,000 would purchase five $1 QPs in every drawing for five years. After 120 drawings with no wins and out $600, how many real players would continue playing using your method, knowing the most they can win is $500?"

        ...you still don't understand how these kinds of simulations work, and how powerful they are.  I'm not going to address your above ramblings for fear of embarrassing you more than you've already done yourself.  You are a perfect example of the innumerate person with an obvious grasp of many aspects of statistics and mathematics in general but one who still falls victim to the Gambler's Fallacy and can't see how observing the results of thousands of fictitious random players is a powerful and valuable tool.   As long as you believe that today's draws are in any way dependent on previous draws, you will remain an innumerate. 

        https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

        --Jimmy4164

        p.s.  Psychologists believe that a big contributor to a person's tendency to believe in the Gambler's Fallacy is their NEED TO CONTROL as much as possible in their lives.  Pure randomness challenges their supremacy. (Does the shoe fit?)

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7322 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 12, 2013, 8:17 pm - IP Logged

          Well Stack47, it looks as though we've come full circle.  It's been 2 years, almost to the day, since I tried to introduce you to the power of Monte Carlo Simulation Techniques.  But based on what you wrote today...

          "You probably couldn't find 100 real Pick-3 players that would purchase one $1 straight QP ticket in every drawing for the next 100 drawings, but incredibly you believe 25,000 would purchase five $1 QPs in every drawing for five years. After 120 drawings with no wins and out $600, how many real players would continue playing using your method, knowing the most they can win is $500?"

          ...you still don't understand how these kinds of simulations work, and how powerful they are.  I'm not going to address your above ramblings for fear of embarrassing you more than you've already done yourself.  You are a perfect example of the innumerate person with an obvious grasp of many aspects of statistics and mathematics in general but one who still falls victim to the Gambler's Fallacy and can't see how observing the results of thousands of fictitious random players is a powerful and valuable tool.   As long as you believe that today's draws are in any way dependent on previous draws, you will remain an innumerate. 

          https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947

          --Jimmy4164

          p.s.  Psychologists believe that a big contributor to a person's tendency to believe in the Gambler's Fallacy is their NEED TO CONTROL as much as possible in their lives.  Pure randomness challenges their supremacy. (Does the shoe fit?)

          "...you still don't understand how these kinds of simulations work, and how powerful they are."

          You keep using the word "simulation", but apparently don't understand what the word means. Maybe you and some of your crazy old uncles would purchase five $1 pick-3 straight QPs every drawing for a year, not win a thing, be out $1825, and still make a bet where the top win would still leave you $1325 in the hole, but only a fool would believe real pick-3 players would do that. By my count, 22,883 of your fictional players were still making a $5 bet to win $500 on the last drawing when none of them could break even.

          "so all of these 19,092 people were losers, losing between $3125 and $6125 over their 5 years of play."

          Yet you believe you can tell a group of knowledgeable pick-3 players that each of those 19,092 people (LMAO!), the majority out over $4000, were all still betting $5 to win $500 on their last chance and incredibly call it a "simulation". It's difficult to determine how many of them were out over $7000 on the last drawing because of your very shoddy graph, but it looks like over 1100. What exactly were you simulating because it doesn't resemble anything even close to real pick-3 play?

          "I tried to introduce you to the power of Monte Carlo Simulation Techniques."

          Wrong, I was running lottery game simulations long before I became a member of LP. When you became a member, if I wanted to see how 100 QPs would do in a MM drawing, I could create them in 2 seconds using LP's QP Generator. If I wanted to see how they did in the history of the game, I entered them into LP's MM number search 10 at a time. You really are suffering from delusions of grandeur believing you introduced any LP premium member to simulators.

          A Monte Carlo type simulator might be useful to a lottery terminal RNG programmer to get a ball park estimate of the number of top secondary prizes based on an estimate number of QPs in games where a large percentage of real players purchase QPs. But you're not a lottery terminal RNG programmer, not many real pick-3 players purchase QPs and the ones that do wouldn't continue your ridiculous method of play after 120 drawings if they hadn't won anything and zero would continue betting $5 to win $500 after losing $2000 to $7000.

          "Psychologists believe that a big contributor to a person's tendency to believe in the Gambler's Fallacy"

          What do they say about people suffering from delusions of grandeur, call an unrealistic test of actually lottery play a "scientific approach", and name one of their imaginary players "Old Uncle Craig"?


            United States
            Member #93947
            July 10, 2010
            2180 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 12, 2013, 9:15 pm - IP Logged

            Stack47,

            Your personal assessment (above) of these matters under discussion is far superior to anything I could possibly compose in an attempt to explain your understanding of Monte Carlo Techniques.  I'm sorry my teaching skills are not up to the task in your case.  Have a nice night, and good luck!

            --Jimmy4164

            P.S. https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229672/2023820 


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 13, 2013, 4:11 pm - IP Logged

              Stack47,

              I've had a change of heart and decided to give it another shot.  I never like to give up on anyone.

              You said, "Yet you believe you can tell a group of knowledgeable pick-3 players that each of those 19,092 people (LMAO!), the majority out over $4000, were all still betting $5 to win $500 on their last chance and incredibly call it a 'simulation'. It's difficult to determine how many of them were out over $7000 on the last drawing because of your very shoddy graph, but it looks like over 1100. What exactly were you simulating because it doesn't resemble anything even close to real pick-3 play?"

              The more you post on this subject, the more you reveal the profound nature and depth of your innumeracy.  As for what my Pick-3 simulation was designed to show, you have either purposely ignored it, or because of some subliminal reason that only a psychologist could explain, it has completely eluded your conscious mind.

              The simple Monte Carlo simulations that I've performed and reported on here were designed to show what can be expected from purely random player selections and random lottery draws.  The fact that players like you would NEVER continue to make random plays for 5 years while losing most of the time is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT!  This is most obvious when you look at the Pick-3, because it spreads its 50% payback around to more people with its low 1:1000 jackpot odds.  Another way to look at the results is to know that they are what the Lottery Commissions see when their accountants submit their reports.  The reason you believe it's silly to keep playing randomly when you're losing is because you BELIEVE you can do better than expected by continually changing your bets.  The statistitions and gaming mathematicians (Esp Don Catlin) at the lotteries and casinos beg to differ with you.  You can't!

              Please take another look:

              https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/2850041

              --Jimmy4164

                rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                United States
                Member #73904
                April 28, 2009
                14903 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 13, 2013, 7:19 pm - IP Logged

                You have a good attitude.  Good luck!

                And if you win I hope you use the money to do something that gets you an invitation to Oslo.

                "...do something that gets you an invitation to Oslo."

                Oslo?

                I'd much prefer to go to Copenhagen.

                And have a Danish. Big Grin


                                                             
                                     
                                                         

                 

                 

                 

                 

                                                                                                                   

                "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                            --Edmund Burke

                 

                 

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7322 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: April 14, 2013, 4:38 am - IP Logged

                  Stack47,

                  I've had a change of heart and decided to give it another shot.  I never like to give up on anyone.

                  You said, "Yet you believe you can tell a group of knowledgeable pick-3 players that each of those 19,092 people (LMAO!), the majority out over $4000, were all still betting $5 to win $500 on their last chance and incredibly call it a 'simulation'. It's difficult to determine how many of them were out over $7000 on the last drawing because of your very shoddy graph, but it looks like over 1100. What exactly were you simulating because it doesn't resemble anything even close to real pick-3 play?"

                  The more you post on this subject, the more you reveal the profound nature and depth of your innumeracy.  As for what my Pick-3 simulation was designed to show, you have either purposely ignored it, or because of some subliminal reason that only a psychologist could explain, it has completely eluded your conscious mind.

                  The simple Monte Carlo simulations that I've performed and reported on here were designed to show what can be expected from purely random player selections and random lottery draws.  The fact that players like you would NEVER continue to make random plays for 5 years while losing most of the time is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT!  This is most obvious when you look at the Pick-3, because it spreads its 50% payback around to more people with its low 1:1000 jackpot odds.  Another way to look at the results is to know that they are what the Lottery Commissions see when their accountants submit their reports.  The reason you believe it's silly to keep playing randomly when you're losing is because you BELIEVE you can do better than expected by continually changing your bets.  The statistitions and gaming mathematicians (Esp Don Catlin) at the lotteries and casinos beg to differ with you.  You can't!

                  Please take another look:

                  https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/247020/2850041

                  --Jimmy4164

                  "you BELIEVE you can do better than expected by continually changing your bets."

                  I've said all along all bets are conditional and winning or losing those bets depend on if the conditions are met. Can you give me one logical reason why any gambler or lottery player would make bet if they believed they would lose?


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: April 14, 2013, 11:31 am - IP Logged

                    "you BELIEVE you can do better than expected by continually changing your bets."

                    I've said all along all bets are conditional and winning or losing those bets depend on if the conditions are met. Can you give me one logical reason why any gambler or lottery player would make bet if they believed they would lose?

                    "Can you give me one logical reason why any gambler or lottery player would make bet if they believed they would lose?"

                    If by "believed they would lose" you mean "KNEW they would lose," then, obviously, there would be no reason to bet.  However, in games such as the lottery, which are based on random processes, there is no way for anyone to KNOW in advance whether they are going to win, or lose.  And that includes YOU!

                    Your "conditions" are based on a belief in the Gamblers Fallacy.  Since I'm pretty sure you will never admit that I'm right, wouldn't it be best for you, at this point, to just declare, "No mas!"?


                      United States
                      Member #116268
                      September 7, 2011
                      20244 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: April 14, 2013, 11:40 am - IP Logged

                      "Can you give me one logical reason why any gambler or lottery player would make bet if they believed they would lose?"

                      If by "believed they would lose" you mean "KNEW they would lose," then, obviously, there would be no reason to bet.  However, in games such as the lottery, which are based on random processes, there is no way for anyone to KNOW in advance whether they are going to win, or lose.  And that includes YOU!

                      Your "conditions" are based on a belief in the Gamblers Fallacy.  Since I'm pretty sure you will never admit that I'm right, wouldn't it be best for you, at this point, to just declare, "No mas!"?

                      People KNOW they are going to win all the time. Just because Jammy refuses to accept this as a valid human experience does NOT mean that it is not real. A guy in AZ KNEW his set of numbers was going to win and bought 6 different bonus numbers with his set. He missed the bonus number, but won 6 million dollars. 

                      Self picks, btw.


                        United States
                        Member #116268
                        September 7, 2011
                        20244 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: April 14, 2013, 11:42 am - IP Logged

                        De nada.

                        Oslo is so over rated.


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: April 14, 2013, 11:49 am - IP Logged

                          Of course Jammys dilemma with reality is understandable..........

                          you have to play the lottery to be a winner of the lottery, and Jammy is NOT a player or a winner.


                            United States
                            Member #93947
                            July 10, 2010
                            2180 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: April 14, 2013, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

                            People KNOW they are going to win all the time. Just because Jammy refuses to accept this as a valid human experience does NOT mean that it is not real. A guy in AZ KNEW his set of numbers was going to win and bought 6 different bonus numbers with his set. He missed the bonus number, but won 6 million dollars. 

                            Self picks, btw.

                            Ronnie's Retrospectives

                            Ronnie believes in the power of positive thinking, which definitely doesn't hurt his chances of winning the lottery.  When he buys a ticket, he envisions himself winning.  When he does actually win, he looks back and declares that he KNEW he was going to win.  I don't think he likes to talk much about those RARE cases where he buys a ticket, thinks positive, and LOSES.

                              rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
                              Texas
                              United States
                              Member #55889
                              October 23, 2007
                              5615 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: April 14, 2013, 1:20 pm - IP Logged

                              "you BELIEVE you can do better than expected by continually changing your bets."

                              I've said all along all bets are conditional and winning or losing those bets depend on if the conditions are met. Can you give me one logical reason why any gambler or lottery player would make bet if they believed they would lose?

                              ALL bets are conditional to winning. Just playing one line is conditional on those numbers played being drawn.

                              What jammy is struggling with is that we can create some conditions in picking numbers to better our chances in winning.

                              CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

                              A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

                                 
                                Page 6 of 42