Welcome Guest
You last visited December 8, 2016, 6:57 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Would you use a system that generated 343 straights (for Pick 3)?

Topic closed. 35 replies. Last post 3 years ago by Igamble.

 Page 1 of 3

Would you use a system that generated 400 straight (out of which one is the winning)?

 Yes [ 15 ] [40.54%] No [ 22 ] [59.46%] Total Valid Votes [ 37 ] Discarded Votes [ 1 ]
New Member
Dallas, TX
United States
Member #147996
October 19, 2013
16 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 24, 2013, 11:02 pm - IP Logged

After spending 3 months trying to develop my own system, I have come up with what I believe to be my best.

My system is based on checking which numbers, if they do come up, will or will not match past distributions when grouped into different sequences. I have written a program to do this, otherwise it would take 20+ hours to this on excel, since I go and check back upto the last 1000 drawings. (I will not get into the method, since it will take me hours to explain the algorithm in details.)

Unfortunately, I can only eliminate 3 or 4 numbers in each spot using this method; hence, I get 7x7x7 = 343 numbers. This works everytime, but the obvious issue is that there are too many combinations to play and I do not like to filter as its seems to elimate winning numbers many times. Imagine filtering out 170 numbers from 343, and finding out you filtered the winning number and lost \$173!

Anyways, would you use this type of system?

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 25, 2013, 1:03 am - IP Logged

After spending 3 months trying to develop my own system, I have come up with what I believe to be my best.

My system is based on checking which numbers, if they do come up, will or will not match past distributions when grouped into different sequences. I have written a program to do this, otherwise it would take 20+ hours to this on excel, since I go and check back upto the last 1000 drawings. (I will not get into the method, since it will take me hours to explain the algorithm in details.)

Unfortunately, I can only eliminate 3 or 4 numbers in each spot using this method; hence, I get 7x7x7 = 343 numbers. This works everytime, but the obvious issue is that there are too many combinations to play and I do not like to filter as its seems to elimate winning numbers many times. Imagine filtering out 170 numbers from 343, and finding out you filtered the winning number and lost \$173!

Anyways, would you use this type of system?

NO.

A good system should produce a very small set of numbers.  At most ten.  And that is kind of overdoing it.

Its better to find a good number (that task and how they do it is up to the player), time it, wait it out, save your money and then pounce when the time is right.

nj
United States
Member #145657
August 10, 2013
974 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 25, 2013, 1:33 am - IP Logged

NO.

A good system should produce a very small set of numbers.  At most ten.  And that is kind of overdoing it.

Its better to find a good number (that task and how they do it is up to the player), time it, wait it out, save your money and then pounce when the time is right.

LB ,I am good with extracting the winning numbers and having very few sets .BUT how exactly orr what criterias you use to time the hit and wait it out-due/hot  pairs /traveller numbers from neighbouring states /traveller pairs/vtracs sum due or vtrac HOT repeater nr. ,instinct ?i missed a few good ones and tryng to find the errors.well one was that i was cheap and i dindt play them ..

Thanks

ANSwer to the topic is NO -unless if playing online -that will b around 85bucks.draw ,so you must get a hit within 4-5 tries or you go in red..but you may as well get 4-5 7 straights ina  row after the loosing streak so ITS A GAMBLE..sounds like you have a pretty good system ..i would def. trry it online .i only play at corenr store due to the questioning they do with the online thing.

United States
Member #141260
April 9, 2013
1390 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 25, 2013, 8:40 am - IP Logged

Yes.....

u\$a
United States
Member #106665
February 22, 2011
19843 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 25, 2013, 8:53 am - IP Logged

Yes

Let it Snow

Whiskey Island
United States
Member #90216
April 24, 2010
12741 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 25, 2013, 9:29 pm - IP Logged

No . I would rather use a System/Method that generates 8 Straights for Pick 3 !!!

New Member
Dallas, TX
United States
Member #147996
October 19, 2013
16 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 25, 2013, 10:14 pm - IP Logged

Sorry for not clarifying everybody, but this system generate the winning numbers almost all the time even when triples are drawn! That's the only reason why the question came up.

But I would not use this system by itself, since it is too many combinations. I hope I can find another system in conjuction that works well.

u\$a
United States
Member #106665
February 22, 2011
19843 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 26, 2013, 11:53 am - IP Logged

Sorry for not clarifying everybody, but this system generate the winning numbers almost all the time even when triples are drawn! That's the only reason why the question came up.

But I would not use this system by itself, since it is too many combinations. I hope I can find another system in conjuction that works well.

I hope I can find another system

you came to the right place

Let it Snow

Texas
United States
Member #86154
January 30, 2010
1649 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 26, 2013, 12:49 pm - IP Logged

cooltalker, contrary to what you may think about it being too many numbers along with other opinions here, you're headed in the right direction. Also, you're probably closer than 90% of the players here to developing a very, very consistent system. I understand the concept of wanting to play the absolute least amount of numbers possible but, that comes with a price as well...and that price is inconsistency and losing until luck finds you. You're well under the threshold  of a properly balanced system which allows you to win very frequently and only give back a small portion of THE HOUSE'S money upon a loss.

I like the people here, but they really don't understand the concept of what you're doing how well it actually works when properly implemented. "You get what you pay for" and this is something everyone is familar with. When you're rolling with +- (10) numbers, you're solely dependent upon luck and have no desire for consistency whatsoever. You and I have never spoke and I know exactly how you specifically arrived at (343) numbers...and I know you see the light. Keep working towards the light (efficiency) and you'll never look back. If you're now like I was a few years ago, and tired of looking at a shoe box full of losing tickets, you'll adjust your system accordingly and disregard anyone saying it's too many numbers.

Funny thing is, should you move forward and become very successful with it, they'll be sending you private mails galore asking for numbers and saying how they don't mind playing lots of numbers NOW. Buddy, if you know you've got a good thing, go against the grain (negativity) and fine tune it for yourself. Do more quality testing while saving up a small bankroll to get started, okay. This is the key. What I do is too expensive for 99% of the people here, but I keep money in my pocket via payouts. Can't keep money in my pocket if I'm constantly taking it out to play next time, now can I?

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

New Member
Dallas, TX
United States
Member #147996
October 19, 2013
16 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 26, 2013, 6:46 pm - IP Logged

I completely agree with you. Hoping to win consistently with 10 combination is truly absurd.

Ideally speaking, all possible 1000 combinations have equal likelihood of coming up, however, all we can do is eliminate combinations based on what actually occurs in most cases. Suggesting that one can eliminate 990 possible combinations would be an extremely strong evidence for determinism.

In the end, the goal is to create a probability model with a high succes rate with a good profit margin. (I prefer the term "probability model," instead of system, since I only observe what happens within the lottery distributions most of the time.) Anyways, I am satisfied that I can go from 1000 combinations down to 343 with a 90% success rate.

I would like to play online, but it's not legal and I don't trust that website since I have heard of people being robbed of money on their account; but with a 90% success rate and a \$900 payout, playing 343 combinations does sound irrestibly profitable.

Anyways, I think I will start playing pairs for Daily 4. So my model will give me 7x7=49 combinations, and filters will get me down to 20 combinations. I can start by making about \$15-20 per game on average (after including losses mostly due to filters and they payout being only \$50). Unfortunately, the profit margin is very slim.

United States
Member #141260
April 9, 2013
1390 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 27, 2013, 12:28 am - IP Logged

cooltalker, contrary to what you may think about it being too many numbers along with other opinions here, you're headed in the right direction. Also, you're probably closer than 90% of the players here to developing a very, very consistent system. I understand the concept of wanting to play the absolute least amount of numbers possible but, that comes with a price as well...and that price is inconsistency and losing until luck finds you. You're well under the threshold  of a properly balanced system which allows you to win very frequently and only give back a small portion of THE HOUSE'S money upon a loss.

I like the people here, but they really don't understand the concept of what you're doing how well it actually works when properly implemented. "You get what you pay for" and this is something everyone is familar with. When you're rolling with +- (10) numbers, you're solely dependent upon luck and have no desire for consistency whatsoever. You and I have never spoke and I know exactly how you specifically arrived at (343) numbers...and I know you see the light. Keep working towards the light (efficiency) and you'll never look back. If you're now like I was a few years ago, and tired of looking at a shoe box full of losing tickets, you'll adjust your system accordingly and disregard anyone saying it's too many numbers.

Funny thing is, should you move forward and become very successful with it, they'll be sending you private mails galore asking for numbers and saying how they don't mind playing lots of numbers NOW. Buddy, if you know you've got a good thing, go against the grain (negativity) and fine tune it for yourself. Do more quality testing while saving up a small bankroll to get started, okay. This is the key. What I do is too expensive for 99% of the people here, but I keep money in my pocket via payouts. Can't keep money in my pocket if I'm constantly taking it out to play next time, now can I?

L.L.

I àgree...   I agree...

United States
Member #149179
November 22, 2013
37 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 29, 2013, 4:07 am - IP Logged

I would and here's why: \$500-\$343 =\$157 profit; \$157 profit � 30 days =\$ 4,710 month;\$4,710 � 12 months =\$ 56,520 tax free money!!! (Based upon you only purchasing one ticket, could be more if you doubled up once you started winning)

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7313 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 30, 2013, 12:59 pm - IP Logged

I would and here's why: \$500-\$343 =\$157 profit; \$157 profit � 30 days =\$ 4,710 month;\$4,710 � 12 months =\$ 56,520 tax free money!!! (Based upon you only purchasing one ticket, could be more if you doubled up once you started winning)

I am satisfied that I can go from 1000 combinations down to 343 with a 90% success rate.

And I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can get a 90% success rate with a 65.7% chance of losing every bet. If they really have something, predict seven digits in each digit position for 10 drawings.

United States
Member #141260
April 9, 2013
1390 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 30, 2013, 1:20 pm - IP Logged

New York
United States
Member #83026
November 27, 2009
2132 Posts
Offline
 Posted: November 30, 2013, 1:20 pm - IP Logged

cooltalker, contrary to what you may think about it being too many numbers along with other opinions here, you're headed in the right direction. Also, you're probably closer than 90% of the players here to developing a very, very consistent system. I understand the concept of wanting to play the absolute least amount of numbers possible but, that comes with a price as well...and that price is inconsistency and losing until luck finds you. You're well under the threshold  of a properly balanced system which allows you to win very frequently and only give back a small portion of THE HOUSE'S money upon a loss.

I like the people here, but they really don't understand the concept of what you're doing how well it actually works when properly implemented. "You get what you pay for" and this is something everyone is familar with. When you're rolling with +- (10) numbers, you're solely dependent upon luck and have no desire for consistency whatsoever. You and I have never spoke and I know exactly how you specifically arrived at (343) numbers...and I know you see the light. Keep working towards the light (efficiency) and you'll never look back. If you're now like I was a few years ago, and tired of looking at a shoe box full of losing tickets, you'll adjust your system accordingly and disregard anyone saying it's too many numbers.

Funny thing is, should you move forward and become very successful with it, they'll be sending you private mails galore asking for numbers and saying how they don't mind playing lots of numbers NOW. Buddy, if you know you've got a good thing, go against the grain (negativity) and fine tune it for yourself. Do more quality testing while saving up a small bankroll to get started, okay. This is the key. What I do is too expensive for 99% of the people here, but I keep money in my pocket via payouts. Can't keep money in my pocket if I'm constantly taking it out to play next time, now can I?

L.L.

I agree and I am VERY interested in your program(s) (cooltalker and Lucky Loser).

I certainly subscride to the notion that if you have to play 343 numbers each and every draw (let's call it 343 \$1 str8 tickets) to win \$500 each and every draw for a profit of \$157.00 this is akin to buying money and I would do that all day long.  However the system would have to prove out at around 86% (this would allow for 2 loses per week) this would leave you with a profit \$1,512.00 per week.  I wouldn't want to play if I wasn't profiting at least that much, the risk reward ratio must be atractive.  In this scenario you would spend \$4,802.00 to win that \$1,512.00 with two loses calculated in.

Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

An Unruly Evil

 Page 1 of 3