Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 16, 2017, 5:37 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

what is the most you ever won on a daily 3 pick game?

Topic closed. 54 replies. Last post 4 years ago by Stack47.

Page 4 of 4
51
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7340 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 25, 2013, 8:06 pm - IP Logged

Stack47,

All of these great wins being reported here are just what my simulations predict!  I hope you won't bore us yet again with your explanation that "normal" players don't buy 5 QPs per day for 5 years; it's irrelevant, and only serves to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the value of simulations like these.

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

Of course, you and some of the other lucky players want us to believe that your respective lotteries should be grateful that you've kept your winning Pick-3 methods to yourselves.  YOU believe that if you were to tell the wrong people how you raised investment capital playing the Pick-3, it surely would go viral, and picking randomly selected 3 digit numbers from a set of 1000 would be a thing of the past.  Thanks Stack47, for allowing the game to remain alive!

--Jimmy4164

"YOU believe that if you were to tell the wrong people"

If you know what I believe, then you know I believe you suffer from Delusions of Grandeur and everything you post is yak, yak, yak, blah, blah, blah.


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 25, 2013, 9:18 pm - IP Logged

    "YOU believe that if you were to tell the wrong people"

    If you know what I believe, then you know I believe you suffer from Delusions of Grandeur and everything you post is yak, yak, yak, blah, blah, blah.

    Stack47,

    And each time you respond as you did here, you prove again that you are evasive and unwilling [or unable] to address the tough issues that I raise.  Even when you go to the trouble to enclose another's words in quotation marks, you often respond with something totally unrelated.  And you probably think nobody notices.

    https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/261432/3082969

    --Jimmy4164

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7340 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 26, 2013, 1:39 am - IP Logged

      Stack47,

      And each time you respond as you did here, you prove again that you are evasive and unwilling [or unable] to address the tough issues that I raise.  Even when you go to the trouble to enclose another's words in quotation marks, you often respond with something totally unrelated.  And you probably think nobody notices.

      https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/261432/3082969

      --Jimmy4164

      "All of these great wins being reported here are just what my simulations predict!"

      You can't be talking about the five $1 QPs ever drawing for five years simulation.

      "I hope you won't bore us yet again with your explanation that "normal" players don't buy 5 QPs per day for 5 years; it's irrelevant, and only serves to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the value of simulations like these."

      I guess you were talking about it, but don't let the facts that even if one of your imaginary giant white rabbits players bought five $1 QPs with the same (LMAO!) three digit number they still could not win the one drawing amounts posted on this thread. Have you noticed how many pick-3 players on this thread say they play pick-3 QPs?

      Here's a hint: Zero, None, Zilch.

      "And each time you respond as you did here, you prove again that you are evasive and unwilling [or unable] to address the tough issues that I raise."

      Most of your responses tell other members what you believe they know, think, or are trying to do. Who wants to debate what goes on in your head?

      "Even when you go to the trouble to enclose another's words in quotation marks, you often respond with something totally unrelated."

      Why would anyone want to respond to Yak, Yak, Yah, Blah, Blah, Blah?

      "And you probably think nobody notices."

      Are you sure everyone reads your posts?

      Here's a suggestion, start a thread on any lottery related topic and then you can go as far off topic as you like. I hope it does better than the egg you laid with http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229612/2011774


        United States
        Member #124493
        March 14, 2012
        7023 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 26, 2013, 5:47 am - IP Logged

        "All of these great wins being reported here are just what my simulations predict!"

        You can't be talking about the five $1 QPs ever drawing for five years simulation.

        "I hope you won't bore us yet again with your explanation that "normal" players don't buy 5 QPs per day for 5 years; it's irrelevant, and only serves to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the value of simulations like these."

        I guess you were talking about it, but don't let the facts that even if one of your imaginary giant white rabbits players bought five $1 QPs with the same (LMAO!) three digit number they still could not win the one drawing amounts posted on this thread. Have you noticed how many pick-3 players on this thread say they play pick-3 QPs?

        Here's a hint: Zero, None, Zilch.

        "And each time you respond as you did here, you prove again that you are evasive and unwilling [or unable] to address the tough issues that I raise."

        Most of your responses tell other members what you believe they know, think, or are trying to do. Who wants to debate what goes on in your head?

        "Even when you go to the trouble to enclose another's words in quotation marks, you often respond with something totally unrelated."

        Why would anyone want to respond to Yak, Yak, Yah, Blah, Blah, Blah?

        "And you probably think nobody notices."

        Are you sure everyone reads your posts?

        Here's a suggestion, start a thread on any lottery related topic and then you can go as far off topic as you like. I hope it does better than the egg you laid with http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229612/2011774

        Actually thats not true Stack.

        Many players on the DT play quickpicks, and they
        "swear" that they have a system for it.

        I seen it.

        Dont really use it or trust it. But they love to talk about their quickpicks.

          Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
          Texas
          United States
          Member #86154
          January 30, 2010
          1654 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 26, 2013, 10:49 am - IP Logged

          I Agree!

          Definitely have to agree with you and grwurston here. Tailor made numbers seem to work much better...at least for Lucky, they do. I've grown to like consistency...

           

          L.L.

          Small games, frequent wins, and regular payouts 'cause.....

          There are seven days in the week...'Someday' isn't one of them.

          #lotto-4-a-living

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7340 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 26, 2013, 1:17 pm - IP Logged

            Actually thats not true Stack.

            Many players on the DT play quickpicks, and they
            "swear" that they have a system for it.

            I seen it.

            Dont really use it or trust it. But they love to talk about their quickpicks.

            I can't see how buying a QP and playing that number multiple times would be different than playing any number multiple times. Players have systems for buying scratch-offs; call it luck, call it intuition, or call it anything. but if they're winning, they can call it successful.

            I still doubt you'll find any real players that will continue to buy five $1 pick-3 QPs for over a year without cashing a winning ticket.


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 26, 2013, 2:55 pm - IP Logged

              "All of these great wins being reported here are just what my simulations predict!"

              You can't be talking about the five $1 QPs ever drawing for five years simulation.

              "I hope you won't bore us yet again with your explanation that "normal" players don't buy 5 QPs per day for 5 years; it's irrelevant, and only serves to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the value of simulations like these."

              I guess you were talking about it, but don't let the facts that even if one of your imaginary giant white rabbits players bought five $1 QPs with the same (LMAO!) three digit number they still could not win the one drawing amounts posted on this thread. Have you noticed how many pick-3 players on this thread say they play pick-3 QPs?

              Here's a hint: Zero, None, Zilch.

              "And each time you respond as you did here, you prove again that you are evasive and unwilling [or unable] to address the tough issues that I raise."

              Most of your responses tell other members what you believe they know, think, or are trying to do. Who wants to debate what goes on in your head?

              "Even when you go to the trouble to enclose another's words in quotation marks, you often respond with something totally unrelated."

              Why would anyone want to respond to Yak, Yak, Yah, Blah, Blah, Blah?

              "And you probably think nobody notices."

              Are you sure everyone reads your posts?

              Here's a suggestion, start a thread on any lottery related topic and then you can go as far off topic as you like. I hope it does better than the egg you laid with http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229612/2011774

              Stack47,

              You couldn't help yourself.  Yet again, you've demonstrated your cluelessness regarding Monte Carlo simulations.  Oh, well.

              As for your suggestion for me, "I hope it does better than the egg you laid with...

              https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229612/2011774  "

              I'm really glad you brought this up.  It's very telling.  I don't expect you to know what it tells, or why, but it is.

              Those who know what I mean will chuckle; those who don't, never will.

              "Are you sure everyone reads your posts?"

              Based on the sharp increase in thread views immediately following many of my posts, It would appear there are quite a few who do.  You and a handful of others clearly are followers of mine.

              Now, here is an important question for you:

              Given your negative opinion of and rejection of most of what I post here, WHAT compels you to exert the considerable energy that you do to try to discredit, or otherwise undo anything I attempt?

              I've stated my "agenda," if you will, many times.  I hope you can answer this simple, straightforward question in a simple, straightforward manner.

              --Jimmy4164

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7340 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 27, 2013, 12:55 am - IP Logged

                Stack47,

                You couldn't help yourself.  Yet again, you've demonstrated your cluelessness regarding Monte Carlo simulations.  Oh, well.

                As for your suggestion for me, "I hope it does better than the egg you laid with...

                https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229612/2011774  "

                I'm really glad you brought this up.  It's very telling.  I don't expect you to know what it tells, or why, but it is.

                Those who know what I mean will chuckle; those who don't, never will.

                "Are you sure everyone reads your posts?"

                Based on the sharp increase in thread views immediately following many of my posts, It would appear there are quite a few who do.  You and a handful of others clearly are followers of mine.

                Now, here is an important question for you:

                Given your negative opinion of and rejection of most of what I post here, WHAT compels you to exert the considerable energy that you do to try to discredit, or otherwise undo anything I attempt?

                I've stated my "agenda," if you will, many times.  I hope you can answer this simple, straightforward question in a simple, straightforward manner.

                --Jimmy4164

                "Yet again, you've demonstrated your cluelessness regarding Monte Carlo simulations."

                What was the most any of your 25,000 imaginary Monte Hall players ever won on a pick-3 drawing?

                "Those who know what I mean will chuckle; those who don't, never will.

                Why didn't any of your chuckling buddies comment on your thread?

                "WHAT compels you to exert the considerable energy that you do to try to discredit, or otherwise undo anything I attempt?"

                It takes very little energy and very little thought to reply to your Yak, Yak, Yak, Blah, Blah, Blah comments.

                "I've stated my "agenda," if you will, many times."

                Most knowledgeable lottery players and gamblers in general can spot problem gamblers a mile a way. And looking around LP I don't see any problem gamblers thought there may be a couple members with potential. If your agenda is to help would be problem gamblers, you're in the wrong place.

                As for your math, most of us already did the math and know the odds against picking the winning three digit number is 999 to 1. We also know by betting $2 on a number, we'll be paid $998 and $1497 if we bet $3. Believe it or not, we all know how much we can win or lose every time we make a bet.

                Is your agenda to explain the odds that are clearly printed on back of play-slips or can easily be found on state lottery websites?


                  United States
                  Member #93947
                  July 10, 2010
                  2180 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 27, 2013, 10:21 pm - IP Logged

                  "Yet again, you've demonstrated your cluelessness regarding Monte Carlo simulations."

                  What was the most any of your 25,000 imaginary Monte Hall players ever won on a pick-3 drawing?

                  "Those who know what I mean will chuckle; those who don't, never will.

                  Why didn't any of your chuckling buddies comment on your thread?

                  "WHAT compels you to exert the considerable energy that you do to try to discredit, or otherwise undo anything I attempt?"

                  It takes very little energy and very little thought to reply to your Yak, Yak, Yak, Blah, Blah, Blah comments.

                  "I've stated my "agenda," if you will, many times."

                  Most knowledgeable lottery players and gamblers in general can spot problem gamblers a mile a way. And looking around LP I don't see any problem gamblers thought there may be a couple members with potential. If your agenda is to help would be problem gamblers, you're in the wrong place.

                  As for your math, most of us already did the math and know the odds against picking the winning three digit number is 999 to 1. We also know by betting $2 on a number, we'll be paid $998 and $1497 if we bet $3. Believe it or not, we all know how much we can win or lose every time we make a bet.

                  Is your agenda to explain the odds that are clearly printed on back of play-slips or can easily be found on state lottery websites?

                  Stack47,

                  "What was the most any of your 25,000 imaginary Monte Hall players ever won on a pick-3 drawing?"

                  Yet again, you've demonstrated your cluelessness regarding Monte Carlo simulations.

                  "Why didn't any of your chuckling buddies comment on your thread?"

                  Maybe they wisely concluded, as I probably should, that the Kelly Criterion would not be understood by most people at LP, and commenting would have been a waste of their time.  If you disagree with this conjecture, perhaps you could tell us what YOU think about the Kelly Criterion.  I should point out that YOU drew our attention to the Kelly Criterion in this thread.

                  "It takes very little energy and very little thought to reply to your Yak, Yak, Yak, Blah, Blah, Blah comments."

                  My question was "WHAT compels you to try to discredit me," not how much energy it requires for you to do it.

                  "Is your agenda to explain the odds that are clearly printed on back of play-slips or can easily be found on state lottery websites?"

                  No, but it definitely appears to be one of yours.  You never seem to tire of letting us know how well versed you are in the details of the various game odds and payouts.  (See your post above.)

                  I don't know why you can't seem to remember my "agenda," which I've stated often.  I guess I'll just have to tell you again.  It's definitely not "Problem Gamblers."  Other than to mention that it has a lot to do with people like you propagating fallacious logic, to "yak" more about it in this post might be more than you can digest in one sitting, so let's leave it for another time.

                  --Jimmy4164

                    Avatar
                    Kentucky
                    United States
                    Member #32652
                    February 14, 2006
                    7340 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 28, 2013, 12:52 am - IP Logged

                    Stack47,

                    "What was the most any of your 25,000 imaginary Monte Hall players ever won on a pick-3 drawing?"

                    Yet again, you've demonstrated your cluelessness regarding Monte Carlo simulations.

                    "Why didn't any of your chuckling buddies comment on your thread?"

                    Maybe they wisely concluded, as I probably should, that the Kelly Criterion would not be understood by most people at LP, and commenting would have been a waste of their time.  If you disagree with this conjecture, perhaps you could tell us what YOU think about the Kelly Criterion.  I should point out that YOU drew our attention to the Kelly Criterion in this thread.

                    "It takes very little energy and very little thought to reply to your Yak, Yak, Yak, Blah, Blah, Blah comments."

                    My question was "WHAT compels you to try to discredit me," not how much energy it requires for you to do it.

                    "Is your agenda to explain the odds that are clearly printed on back of play-slips or can easily be found on state lottery websites?"

                    No, but it definitely appears to be one of yours.  You never seem to tire of letting us know how well versed you are in the details of the various game odds and payouts.  (See your post above.)

                    I don't know why you can't seem to remember my "agenda," which I've stated often.  I guess I'll just have to tell you again.  It's definitely not "Problem Gamblers."  Other than to mention that it has a lot to do with people like you propagating fallacious logic, to "yak" more about it in this post might be more than you can digest in one sitting, so let's leave it for another time.

                    --Jimmy4164

                    Found a thread perfect for your agenda.

                    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/261525