United States
Member #124,487
March 14, 2012
7,021 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 14, 2013
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 #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 14, 2013
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.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
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!"!
United States
Member #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 14, 2013
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.
That question is definitely loaded and can be debatable.
bgonçalves Brasil
Member #92,560
June 9, 2010
3,781 Posts
Offline
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
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on May 14, 2013
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.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
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 every combination, just the winning ones *
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on May 14, 2013
"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.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on May 14, 2013
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.
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 #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 14, 2013
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.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 14, 2013
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.