Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 6:52 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Should a winning system be posted on the LP?

Topic closed. 392 replies. Last post 3 years ago by helpmewin.

Page 10 of 27
4.49
PrintE-mailLink

Should a winning system be posted on the LP?

Don't post a winning system? [ 41 ]  [34.75%]
Post your winning system? [ 77 ]  [65.25%]
Total Valid Votes [ 118 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 11 ]  

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 14, 2013, 1:44 am - IP Logged

It's obvious the only reason you say there is no winning system is because you want to see one. Has it occurred to you some of the people voting yes just want to see a winning system posted too without adding all the BS you post?

Just saying.

Are all the people who say no paranoid?  Or have they all been slighted someway with lies and deceit?

Should a winning system be kept to private messages?


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 14, 2013, 2:28 am - IP Logged

    OnlyMoney,

    "What's the problem?"

    Assume the following was submitted as a poll question somewhere:

    Should a Street Legal 500 Horsepower 1992 Studebaker be allowed to compete in Formula One races?

    ___  YES

    ___  NO

    Now, if you knew that Studebaker never produced a Street Legal 500 Horsepower car and didn't produce ANY cars after 1966, how would you vote?

    The hypothetical poll question above is a "Loaded Question,"  as is the poll question in this thread.

    --Jimmy4164

    Stack47 says, "It's obvious the only reason you say there is no winning system isbecause you want to see one. Has it occurred to you some of the people voting yes just want to see a winning system posted too without adding all the BS you post?"

    This remark of yours is more evidence to support my observation that you are [possibly] the most severely afflicted [with innumeracy] that I have ever come across.  Why?  Because you believe so strongly that you can reduce the House Edge with a system that it's inconceivable to you that anyone could disagree without having an ulterior motive.  Believe me, if I thought it was possible, I wouldn't be picking your brain for answers.

    I'm afraid of what could happen to you if I managed to somehow break through the defense mechanisms you've built up.  If you were as confident as you claim, you would be off somewhere working hard to accomplish what you believe is possible, rather than wasting your time here trying to convince others that it IS possible.  A realization that you've wasted years chasing tails might be more than you can deal with.

    There is also the distinct possibility that vested interests contribute to your fervor.

    It's about time for me to give this up.

    --Jimmy4164

      garyo1954's avatar - garyo
      Dallas, Texas
      United States
      Member #4549
      May 2, 2004
      1663 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 14, 2013, 5:10 am - IP Logged

      "It's about time for me to give this up."

      -jimbubbalooey4164

      Totally 100% agree. If reducing the House Edge was so difficult there would be a lot of lotteries going unwon and unplayed.

      The fact remains there is not a lottery yet that hasn't been won.

      But let's not let this minor detail prevent you from chasing your tail.

       

      G

      My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 14, 2013, 10:17 am - IP Logged

        Garyo1954 says, "If reducing the House Edge was so difficult there would be a lot of lotteries going unwon and unplayed."

        This statement is, at best, a demonstration of a profound misunderstanding of probability, and at its worst, an example of a contrived distortion - a LIE.

        He also says, "The fact remains there is not a lottery yet that hasn't been won."

        This is a TRUE statement that proves absolutely NOTHING about "Winning Systems!"!

        --Jimmy4164


          United States
          Member #128790
          June 2, 2012
          5431 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 14, 2013, 10:40 am - IP Logged

          It's a yes or no.

          what if it was Maybe White Bounce

          If someone decides to pick "Maybe", it's probably because they're not sure. So once they make up their mind up, they should vote yes or no. Green laugh


            United States
            Member #128790
            June 2, 2012
            5431 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 14, 2013, 10:56 am - IP Logged

            OnlyMoney,

            "What's the problem?"

            Assume the following was submitted as a poll question somewhere:

            Should a Street Legal 500 Horsepower 1992 Studebaker be allowed to compete in Formula One races?

            ___  YES

            ___  NO

            Now, if you knew that Studebaker never produced a Street Legal 500 Horsepower car and didn't produce ANY cars after 1966, how would you vote?

            The hypothetical poll question above is a "Loaded Question,"  as is the poll question in this thread.

            --Jimmy4164

            I never claimed that every type of question should have ONLY a yes or no option. Obviously If a question such as the one you posted as an example would require more information, and someone who knew about cars well enough would discard the vote and inform the readers that they stopped production in 1966. And since the majority of the LP members know enough about systems to make a realtively wise decision, I see no problem with the options.

            On the other hand, had the OP ask a question like, "Could a negatively-charged electron have a mass equal to 1/1836 fluctuation when the number of protons greater than an isotope binds with the nucleons?" in a lottery forum, then yes I would agree with you. Green laugh

            That question is definitely loaded and can be debatable. 

              Avatar
              bgonçalves
              Brasil
              Member #92564
              June 9, 2010
              2122 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 14, 2013, 10:57 am - IP Logged

              Hello, Jimmy, below the matrix peifeita to hit the court
              (1,2,3,4 xx) of a lottery 49/6, the digits are clear front
               
              A portion, or half already guaranteed at 100%, ie
               
              Digits of the front of the numbers
              Ensures court (hit 4 numbers) at 100% until it is combuca (forgado)
              this is the perfect matrix in 100% of 4 numbers

               
              0 0 0 0
              0 0 0 1
              0 0 0 2
              0 0 0 3
              0 0 0 4
              0 0 1 1
              0 0 1 2
              0 0 1 3
              0 0 1 4
              0 0 2 2
              0 0 2 3
              0 0 2 4
              0 0 3 3
              0 0 3 4
              0 0 4 4
              0 1 1 1
              0 1 1 2
              0 1 1 3
              0 1 1 4
              0 1 2 2
              0 1 2 3
              0 1 2 4
              0 1 3 3
              0 1 3 4
              0 1 4 4
              0 2 2 2
              0 2 2 3
              2 2 0 4
              0 2 3 3
              0 2 3 4
              0 2 4 4
              0 3 3 3
              3 3 4 0
              0 3 4 4
              0 4 4 4
              1 1 1 1
              1 1 1 2
              1 1 1 3
              1 1 1 4
              1 1 2 2
              1 1 2 3
              1 1 2 4
              1 1 3 3
              1 1 3 4
              1 1 4 4
              1 2 2 2
              1 2 2 3
              1 2 2 4
              1 2 3 3
              1 2 3 4
              1 2 4 4
              1 3 3 3
              1 3 3 4
              1 3 4 4
              1 4 4 4
              2 2 2 2
              2 2 2 3
              2 2 2 4
              2 2 3 3
              2 2 3 4
              2 2 4 4
              2 3 3 3
              2 3 3 4
              2 3 4 4
              2 4 4 4
              3 3 3 3
              3 3 3 4
              3 3 4 4
              3 4 4 4
              4 4 4 4
              Of course, we separate the initial digit of 49/6 going 0-4
              or terminations last digit from 0 to 9 is the biggest problem
              but for the digits in front of the numbers this matrix is ??100% in any lottery, can check (has to separate the digits to do this)
              the results tend to be in ascending order, because the matrix
              is linear

                helpmewin's avatar - dandy
                u$a
                United States
                Member #106665
                February 22, 2011
                19743 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 14, 2013, 12:32 pm - IP Logged

                If someone decides to pick "Maybe", it's probably because they're not sure. So once they make up their mind up, they should vote yes or no. Green laugh

                Let it Snow Snowman


                  United States
                  Member #128790
                  June 2, 2012
                  5431 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 14, 2013, 12:58 pm - IP Logged

                  Ok Sylvia Browne. Green laugh

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7295 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 14, 2013, 2:03 pm - IP Logged

                    Are all the people who say no paranoid?  Or have they all been slighted someway with lies and deceit?

                    Should a winning system be kept to private messages?

                    One or two of the people voting "no" might believe they do have a winning system and don't want to take the chance of splitting a jackpot with several other players. But I believe the majority voting "no" either wouldn't post their system if they had one or a couple of them believes there is no winning system and voted "no" without adding all the BS Jimmy did. 

                    Because it appears it was a California lottery official that contacted JKING probably because of their complaints about the MM and PB 5 + 0 payoffs, Cali Pick-3 and Pick-4 system players could actually lose money by sharing their "winning system" because those games payoff pari-mutually. 

                    Paranoid, maybe but there are legitimate reasons.

                      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                      mid-Ohio
                      United States
                      Member #9
                      March 24, 2001
                      19816 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 14, 2013, 2:58 pm - IP Logged

                      Even if a jackpot winning system is or has been posted at LP and its creator hadn't the resources to utilize it, why would anyone else.  It's easier, less time consuming and cheaper to depend on luck.

                       * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                         
                                   Evil Looking       

                        Avatar
                        Kentucky
                        United States
                        Member #32652
                        February 14, 2006
                        7295 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 14, 2013, 3:10 pm - IP Logged

                        "It's about time for me to give this up."

                        -jimbubbalooey4164

                        Totally 100% agree. If reducing the House Edge was so difficult there would be a lot of lotteries going unwon and unplayed.

                        The fact remains there is not a lottery yet that hasn't been won.

                        But let's not let this minor detail prevent you from chasing your tail.

                         

                        G

                        I believe it's the fourth time just in this thread Jimmy said he was giving up, but he keeps coming back for more.

                        He keeps telling us about this "house edge" but can't explain its effect on individual players. The PA Pick-3 game averages about $1 million in daily sales and with a house edge of 50% means their daily average payout in prizes is $1/2 million. He does his eight grade math and determines for every winner, 1000 players must lose, but it's still just an average. It doesn't reflect real play where the majority of sales are distributed among a few highly played numbers. For all he knows the house might have a 75% edge those those bets and a few other players are benefiting by the difference.

                        Knowing the math is useless when it's applied incorrectly. Maybe Jimmy can explain how the house edge effects the players who lose 100% of their bets.

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7295 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 14, 2013, 3:36 pm - IP Logged

                          Even if a jackpot winning system is or has been posted at LP and its creator hadn't the resources to utilize it, why would anyone else.  It's easier, less time consuming and cheaper to depend on luck.

                          I Agree! because we saw a MM jackpot winning system, but didn't have the resources to play it. Wagering even $5000 on one drawing has little meaning to the average $5 a drawing player even if the system was successful.

                          Anyone following that thread who is interested in trying to create a MM or PB jackpot winning system did learn step one should be to create a bonus ball winning system.


                            United States
                            Member #128790
                            June 2, 2012
                            5431 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 14, 2013, 3:44 pm - IP Logged

                            I believe it's the fourth time just in this thread Jimmy said he was giving up, but he keeps coming back for more.

                            He keeps telling us about this "house edge" but can't explain its effect on individual players. The PA Pick-3 game averages about $1 million in daily sales and with a house edge of 50% means their daily average payout in prizes is $1/2 million. He does his eight grade math and determines for every winner, 1000 players must lose, but it's still just an average. It doesn't reflect real play where the majority of sales are distributed among a few highly played numbers. For all he knows the house might have a 75% edge those those bets and a few other players are benefiting by the difference.

                            Knowing the math is useless when it's applied incorrectly. Maybe Jimmy can explain how the house edge effects the players who lose 100% of their bets.

                            I had a friend years ago who very smart. He could answer Jeopardy questions correctly 90% plus of the time. It was amazing watchng him answer with such accuracy. But one thing he lacked was common sense.

                            I forgot to mention he was a small plane pilot as well.

                            Anyways, one day we were having a conversation about flying and he told me that it's much safer to fly than it is to drive a car based on the death toll statistics. I thought about that for a minute and I realized that data was flawed. At any given time there's about 3,000 commercial airlines in the air, and anywhere from 200 million to 250 million cars on the road. With those differences, of course you're going to have more accidents on the ground. If there were 5 million planes in the air, then yes, but his math just didn't work.

                            I was dumbfounded how such an intelligent guy couldn't understand such a basic comparison. We argued for about 20 minutes, and I just left. He's the type of person who's ego won't allow him to admit he's wrong.

                              Avatar
                              Kentucky
                              United States
                              Member #32652
                              February 14, 2006
                              7295 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 14, 2013, 3:47 pm - IP Logged

                              Stack47 says, "It's obvious the only reason you say there is no winning system isbecause you want to see one. Has it occurred to you some of the people voting yes just want to see a winning system posted too without adding all the BS you post?"

                              This remark of yours is more evidence to support my observation that you are [possibly] the most severely afflicted [with innumeracy] that I have ever come across.  Why?  Because you believe so strongly that you can reduce the House Edge with a system that it's inconceivable to you that anyone could disagree without having an ulterior motive.  Believe me, if I thought it was possible, I wouldn't be picking your brain for answers.

                              I'm afraid of what could happen to you if I managed to somehow break through the defense mechanisms you've built up.  If you were as confident as you claim, you would be off somewhere working hard to accomplish what you believe is possible, rather than wasting your time here trying to convince others that it IS possible.  A realization that you've wasted years chasing tails might be more than you can deal with.

                              There is also the distinct possibility that vested interests contribute to your fervor.

                              It's about time for me to give this up.

                              --Jimmy4164

                              "Because you believe so strongly that you can reduce the House Edge with a system that it's inconceivable to you that anyone could disagree without having an ulterior motive."

                              Wrong as usual because I've never said the house edge can be reduced. If you want to continue to discuss the house edge, explain the effect the house edge has on a player who loses 100% of his bet and the effect if 75% of the players lose 100% of their bets. Then will talk.

                                 
                                Page 10 of 27