Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 10, 2013
"Stack47",
You asked, "In your mind because of your Delusions of Grandeur, do you believe the membership is waiting for your next response like a child on Christmas Eve waiting for Santa?"
Based on the frequency and promptness of his replies to my posts, it would appear that is clearly the case for a member named "Stack47."
--Jimmy4164
I replied 13 hours after you posted and you replied to mine 13 minutes later.
LMAO @ the promptness of my replies.
Maybe if you could resist "responding any more here", maybe my responses to your posts addressed to me would be less frequent. Didn't any of your math sources explain logic?
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 11, 2013
I replied 13 hours after you posted and you replied to mine 13 minutes later.
LMAO @ the promptness of my replies.
Maybe if you could resist "responding any more here", maybe my responses to your posts addressed to me would be less frequent. Didn't any of your math sources explain logic?
"I replied 13 hours after you posted and you replied to mine 13 minutes later."
I see you make the same kind of mistakes evaluating post exchanges as you do selecting your lottery plays; you look back at recent history (in this case one exchange,) and draw conclusions. It doesn't occur to you that there is an element of randomness at play, since neither one of us appears to be monitoring these Forums 24 hours a day.
You are responding to me no less than I'm responding to you. The difference is that you are obviously intent on discrediting anything I say and often respond with no useful purpose. For some unexplained reason, you find it intolerable for someone to have the last word when they make a good point supporting the quote in my current signature line.
If I knew that you had credentials that give you standing to debate with me, perhaps I would be willing to compromise. But since you appear to have a need to hide your qualifications, if any, I believe it is your place to bow out.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 11, 2013
"I replied 13 hours after you posted and you replied to mine 13 minutes later."
I see you make the same kind of mistakes evaluating post exchanges as you do selecting your lottery plays; you look back at recent history (in this case one exchange,) and draw conclusions. It doesn't occur to you that there is an element of randomness at play, since neither one of us appears to be monitoring these Forums 24 hours a day.
You are responding to me no less than I'm responding to you. The difference is that you are obviously intent on discrediting anything I say and often respond with no useful purpose. For some unexplained reason, you find it intolerable for someone to have the last word when they make a good point supporting the quote in my current signature line.
If I knew that you had credentials that give you standing to debate with me, perhaps I would be willing to compromise. But since you appear to have a need to hide your qualifications, if any, I believe it is your place to bow out.
"The difference is that you are obviously intent on discrediting anything I say and often respond with no useful purpose."
Nobody needs to discredit you because you're doing a fine job by yourself. For instance you said I promptly reply to your posts, but the facts show it was 13 hours later. And on that post, you replied to me in 13 minutes. You forced me to reply because what you said was untrue.
I'm not saying simulations are useless, but the majority of yours don't simulate anything useful, therefore making the data you compile useless. If you're going to present a simulation showing it's possible to make a profit buying a limited five $1 QPs every drawing for five years, don't say it's impossible for unlimited playing and betting strategies to show a profit.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 11, 2013
"The difference is that you are obviously intent on discrediting anything I say and often respond with no useful purpose."
Nobody needs to discredit you because you're doing a fine job by yourself. For instance you said I promptly reply to your posts, but the facts show it was 13 hours later. And on that post, you replied to me in 13 minutes. You forced me to reply because what you said was untrue.
I'm not saying simulations are useless, but the majority of yours don't simulate anything useful, therefore making the data you compile useless. If you're going to present a simulation showing it's possible to make a profit buying a limited five $1 QPs every drawing for five years, don't say it's impossible for unlimited playing and betting strategies to show a profit.
Unless of course it is to discredit yourself.
Just saying.
Nobody needs to discredit you because you're doing a fine job by yourself.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 11, 2013
"I replied 13 hours after you posted and you replied to mine 13 minutes later."
I see you make the same kind of mistakes evaluating post exchanges as you do selecting your lottery plays; you look back at recent history (in this case one exchange,) and draw conclusions. It doesn't occur to you that there is an element of randomness at play, since neither one of us appears to be monitoring these Forums 24 hours a day.
You are responding to me no less than I'm responding to you. The difference is that you are obviously intent on discrediting anything I say and often respond with no useful purpose. For some unexplained reason, you find it intolerable for someone to have the last word when they make a good point supporting the quote in my current signature line.
If I knew that you had credentials that give you standing to debate with me, perhaps I would be willing to compromise. But since you appear to have a need to hide your qualifications, if any, I believe it is your place to bow out.
In the post above it sounds like Jammy is asking you to produce "credentials" while using a quote in his signature as his own "credentials"..... Jammy is so twisted in his own logic, he doesn't perceive his folly.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 11, 2013
"I replied 13 hours after you posted and you replied to mine 13 minutes later."
I see you make the same kind of mistakes evaluating post exchanges as you do selecting your lottery plays; you look back at recent history (in this case one exchange,) and draw conclusions. It doesn't occur to you that there is an element of randomness at play, since neither one of us appears to be monitoring these Forums 24 hours a day.
You are responding to me no less than I'm responding to you. The difference is that you are obviously intent on discrediting anything I say and often respond with no useful purpose. For some unexplained reason, you find it intolerable for someone to have the last word when they make a good point supporting the quote in my current signature line.
If I knew that you had credentials that give you standing to debate with me, perhaps I would be willing to compromise. But since you appear to have a need to hide your qualifications, if any, I believe it is your place to bow out.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on May 12, 2013
In the post above it sounds like Jammy is asking you to produce "credentials" while using a quote in his signature as his own "credentials"..... Jammy is so twisted in his own logic, he doesn't perceive his folly.
Not just any old credentials, but credentials that give me standing to debate with him. I'm wondering how much he did lose gambling and telling that story makes more sense than saying don't play lottery games because the odds are terrible.
I asked Dictionary dot com to consider placing a picture of him next to their definition of "Delusions of Grandeur".
Economy class Belgium
Member #123,694
February 27, 2012
4,035 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by JKING on May 3, 2013
Hi,
I got a bit of a shock last week. I posted a thread on the LP and within minutes I recieved a reply from a lottery official. It confirmed my long suspicion that the lotteries are paying attention to what is posted on the LP.
That would bring a question as to wether or not you would want to post a winning system on the LP (assuming you had/have one). Asuming a winning system is posted, it would be a key for the lotteries to change up what they are doing (pre-draws....etc), so that a system is no longer a winning one.
It has been aa long ongoing discussion at the LP why people don't/won't post thier systems or secrets. Maybe, they are playing smart by not posting thier winning systems and secrets.
Should a winning system be posted on the LP?
Don't post a winning system?
Post your winning system?
Discard Vote
After you register your vote the current poll results will be displayed. Select "Discard Vote" to see the results without voting (your vote is discarded permanently).
u$a United States
Member #106,660
February 22, 2011
19,960 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by SergeM on May 13, 2013
Should a winning system be posted on the LP?
Don't post a winning system?
Post your winning system?
Discard Vote
After you register your vote the current poll results will be displayed. Select "Discard Vote" to see the results without voting (your vote is discarded permanently).
United States
Member #128,784
June 2, 2012
5,427 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by helpmewin on May 13, 2013
Strange poll
What's so strange about this poll?
The poll's question is, " Should a winning system be posted on the LP? "
It's a yes or no. The two options cover every angle. The first option allows you to vote NO. The second option asks you to show your system considering you're an advocate of posting systems. The OP is encouraging it. What's the problem?
u$a United States
Member #106,660
February 22, 2011
19,960 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by onlymoney on May 13, 2013
What's so strange about this poll?
The poll's question is, " Should a winning system be posted on the LP? "
It's a yes or no. The two options cover every angle. The first option allows you to vote NO. The second option asks you to show your system considering you're an advocate of posting systems. The OP is encouraging it. What's the problem?
United States
Member #124,487
March 14, 2012
7,021 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by JKING on May 3, 2013
Hi,
I got a bit of a shock last week. I posted a thread on the LP and within minutes I recieved a reply from a lottery official. It confirmed my long suspicion that the lotteries are paying attention to what is posted on the LP.
That would bring a question as to wether or not you would want to post a winning system on the LP (assuming you had/have one). Asuming a winning system is posted, it would be a key for the lotteries to change up what they are doing (pre-draws....etc), so that a system is no longer a winning one.
It has been aa long ongoing discussion at the LP why people don't/won't post thier systems or secrets. Maybe, they are playing smart by not posting thier winning systems and secrets.
Hello JKING, I appreciate your "daring" and ability to push the envelop in regards to lottery matters.
Just thought I would post again because I think that there is nothing really to fear at all.
#1) If you are in shock from being contacted from a Lottery Official, then probably you have never felt the shock of your analyzed numbers being drawn.
#2) If you were advantageous enough to search for a system, then you might find that MANY winning systems have ALREADY been posted and are percolating within the LP Archives.
#3) The only reason you were contacted by an "official" is because if you keep educating the "masses" in California, then California might have another "riot" on their hands, and they wouldn't even need any cops to crack a black mans skulls to instigate it.
#4) "Within minutes"? I think you may have been exxagerating here. I dont think anybody is stalking you, no matter how much self importance you may want to believe. It probably was a 'coinkydink". Until you can hit the PB JP every ten draws like clockwork, then I think the powers that be will leave you alone.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by onlymoney on May 13, 2013
What's so strange about this poll?
The poll's question is, " Should a winning system be posted on the LP? "
It's a yes or no. The two options cover every angle. The first option allows you to vote NO. The second option asks you to show your system considering you're an advocate of posting systems. The OP is encouraging it. What's the problem?
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.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 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
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?