Welcome Guest
You last visited April 30, 2017, 6:43 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Megamillions and Powerball Games

Topic closed. 205 replies. Last post 3 years ago by SergeM.

 Page 4 of 14

Which Play is the Best Bet?

 Powerball [ 9 ] [24.32%] Powerball with Powerplay [ 4 ] [10.81%] Megamillions [ 12 ] [32.43%] Megamillions with Megaplier [ 12 ] [32.43%] Total Valid Votes [ 37 ] Discarded Votes [ 7 ]

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 26, 2014, 5:18 pm - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

"You still don't understand the concept."

I'm sorry, but it's you who does not understand.  I know exactly what you're trying to say, and it's based on a major flaw in your logic.

"If you play only sets that are built from 2 digits then you will reduce your chances of hitting a JP within your lifetime."

This is absolutely WRONG!  The lottery does NOT pay on the basis of digit counts; it pays when your selections match their draws!

"In the last 1000 SM-Cash games there has not been a single two digit set drawn."

So what!  There are 574,757 other combinations yet to be drawn. You're short sighted, and this is the crux of your problem. Additionally, you fail to see that the numerical labeling of the balls is completely arbitrary.  What would happen to your [base 10] digit counting system if the US were to adopt a base 8 number system, or the balls were labeled with 39 (or 56, or 75) Pictograms, each one unique?  (Does this help you to see through the fog?)

I've been pointing you to psychological research on this issue for a long time, but you continue to refuse to consider it.  And now you refuse to check out the best lottery simulator I've ever seen, one that might even open YOUR eyes.

Please try clicking on the link below and watching how this set performs compared to sets containing 5 or 6 digits.

1  2  11  12  21  [1]

http://justwebware.com/megamillions/megamillions.html

Maybe you're afraid to investigate this simulator because you suspect it might prove you wrong, and you can't face that possibility, psychologically.  I for one won't ridicule you if you come to an awakening and admit you were wrong.  I'll feel good that I helped someone overcome an insidious affliction in our country.

--Jimmy4164

P.S. If you persist in refusing to try the simulator and commenting on the results, please don't reply; at this point, it will be a waste of time.

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4287 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 27, 2014, 10:55 am - IP Logged

Jimbo

I have my own tools and have ran thousands of simulations over the years but just for you I ran the

one you linked above and it perty much agrees with my own observations.  One could say that any 6

lines have the same odds as any other group of six lines and I would agree as the odds for the game

cannot be changed.  What you can't seem to get your mind around is the fact that building sets that are

based on solid observations such as population and distribution can increase winnings. It's a skill in that

it takes time to develop and it's different for every game matrix.  It's also not any one thing in particular

but a series of observations inserted into what's called smart picks.

I am up almost \$500.00 for the month with less than \$40.00 invested,  how much have you won this month

using dumb-luck?   The odds are an expression of expectation and don't rule out anything.

RL

....

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20022 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 27, 2014, 5:19 pm - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

"You still don't understand the concept."

I'm sorry, but it's you who does not understand.  I know exactly what you're trying to say, and it's based on a major flaw in your logic.

"If you play only sets that are built from 2 digits then you will reduce your chances of hitting a JP within your lifetime."

This is absolutely WRONG!  The lottery does NOT pay on the basis of digit counts; it pays when your selections match their draws!

"In the last 1000 SM-Cash games there has not been a single two digit set drawn."

So what!  There are 574,757 other combinations yet to be drawn. You're short sighted, and this is the crux of your problem. Additionally, you fail to see that the numerical labeling of the balls is completely arbitrary.  What would happen to your [base 10] digit counting system if the US were to adopt a base 8 number system, or the balls were labeled with 39 (or 56, or 75) Pictograms, each one unique?  (Does this help you to see through the fog?)

I've been pointing you to psychological research on this issue for a long time, but you continue to refuse to consider it.  And now you refuse to check out the best lottery simulator I've ever seen, one that might even open YOUR eyes.

Please try clicking on the link below and watching how this set performs compared to sets containing 5 or 6 digits.

1  2  11  12  21  [1]

http://justwebware.com/megamillions/megamillions.html

Maybe you're afraid to investigate this simulator because you suspect it might prove you wrong, and you can't face that possibility, psychologically.  I for one won't ridicule you if you come to an awakening and admit you were wrong.  I'll feel good that I helped someone overcome an insidious affliction in our country.

--Jimmy4164

P.S. If you persist in refusing to try the simulator and commenting on the results, please don't reply; at this point, it will be a waste of time.

"If you persist in refusing to try the simulator and commenting on the results, please don't reply; at this point, it will be a waste of time."

I think Jimmy has made it as clear as he can if you don't see things his way don't bother responding, it's a waste of time.  He's not interested what you think.

He might change his mind if you won a jackpot so you know what have to do to advance this discussion.

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

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7458 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 27, 2014, 6:42 pm - IP Logged

Profit!

Too bad not this easy in the real world...

In the real world 1 out of every 14.71 MM tickets wins something and this simulation gave 37,401 winning tickets which is only 112 wins short of average. If you simulate 551,824 PB games, you'll probably have around 17,353 winning tickets, but the profits if any will be much lower because the cost is \$1.1 million.

The "1 in 14.71" and "1 in 31.8" is the same if you pick your numbers or get QPs, but there is a huge difference between that one chance winning \$1 and \$1 million. Matching a wheel guarantee can give more quality wins and something like what Player did. http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/272686

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 12:29 am - IP Logged

"If you persist in refusing to try the simulator and commenting on the results, please don't reply; at this point, it will be a waste of time."

I think Jimmy has made it as clear as he can if you don't see things his way don't bother responding, it's a waste of time.  He's not interested what you think.

He might change his mind if you won a jackpot so you know what have to do to advance this discussion.

RJOh,

"He might change his mind if you won a jackpot so you know what have to do to advance this discussion."

No, I would not change my mind.  Winning a jackpot proves absolutely nothing about whether it's possible to win more with a system vs random play.  Jackpots have been won by people purchasing their very first Quick Pick ticket on their 18th birthday.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  I thought you might have been the exception with thoughtful replies to some of the points I've made.  E.G., the arbitrariness of the labeling of the balls in the lottery.

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20022 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 12:50 am - IP Logged

RJOh,

"He might change his mind if you won a jackpot so you know what have to do to advance this discussion."

No, I would not change my mind.  Winning a jackpot proves absolutely nothing about whether it's possible to win more with a system vs random play.  Jackpots have been won by people purchasing their very first Quick Pick ticket on their 18th birthday.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  I thought you might have been the exception with thoughtful replies to some of the points I've made.  E.G., the arbitrariness of the labeling of the balls in the lottery.

Sorry, I should have stop writting after I wrote:

"I think Jimmy has made it as clear as he can if you don't see things his way don't bother responding, it's a waste of time.  He's not interested what you think."

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 1:20 am - IP Logged

Sorry, I should have stop writting after I wrote:

"I think Jimmy has made it as clear as he can if you don't see things his way don't bother responding, it's a waste of time.  He's not interested what you think."

Au contraire, RJOh!

I am VERY interested in what you think.  How else could I develop arguments to help you see the errors in your thinking?  You must know that Richard Epstein's opinion (See my signature line) of betting systems is right in line with the vast majority of scientists in the world and the arguments expressed by posters other than me in this thread are more akin to those put forth by defenders of a 6000 year old earth.  To understand why I am so passionate and persistant in my efforts here,  Google "medical misdiagnosis gambler's fallacy".

--Jimmy4164

mid-Ohio
United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20022 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 2:13 am - IP Logged

Au contraire, RJOh!

I am VERY interested in what you think.  How else could I develop arguments to help you see the errors in your thinking?  You must know that Richard Epstein's opinion (See my signature line) of betting systems is right in line with the vast majority of scientists in the world and the arguments expressed by posters other than me in this thread are more akin to those put forth by defenders of a 6000 year old earth.  To understand why I am so passionate and persistant in my efforts here,  Google "medical misdiagnosis gambler's fallacy".

--Jimmy4164

"I am VERY interested in what you think.  How else could I develop arguments to help you see the errors in your thinking?"

Sorry, I'm not convinced that your thinking and those you refer to don't have some errors too.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 2:34 am - IP Logged

"I am VERY interested in what you think.  How else could I develop arguments to help you see the errors in your thinking?"

Sorry, I'm not convinced that your thinking and those you refer to don't have some errors too.

RJOh,

"Sorry, I'm not convinced that your thinking and those you refer to don't have some errors too."

Well then, why don't you challenge my individual points?

Or, if you agree with RL's latest lame response, quote him and provide some supporting evidence. Am I to conclude that you believe the arbitrariness of labeling lottery balls with Base-10 numbers is no way in conflict with RL's ideas about digits?

I think you know the lottery is random and unpredictable, so how long is it going to take for you to face the fact that your earlier wins were the result of your good fortune?

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4287 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 9:00 am - IP Logged

Jimbo

If you believe the lottery is truly random then it is you that are misguided.  This bit of information

is no doubt wasted on you as you live in a box of sand with your head buried in the ass of others

works.  It's impossible to create a truly random event and if you were as well rounded as you think

you are then you would know this.  If it's not truly random then it also must not be impossible to

improve ones outcome.

I would ask that you produce some evidence of your own instead of regurgitating works of others.

sorry I ment to say your acceptance of the views of others as the only plausible view.

If I believed that the drawings were truly random then I would not be working on systems, If the

drawings are not truly random then your arguments are bogus.  The draws may be random enough

to throw someone like yourself into believing any attempt would be friutless but not me.

Anyone who has ever tried to pick their own numbers will agree that it's not an easy task.  IMHO

you have added less than nothing to LP.  Less than nothing times less than nothing is still nothing.

Go ahead, regurgitate all you want, I for one am not impressed.

My question to you, is it possible for us to create a true random event.  If you say yes then it perty

much shows your fallacy but if you say no then you must accept the possibility that system play is

valid.   It can't be both.

RL

....

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4287 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 9:30 am - IP Logged

PS.

Your remark refering to the misguided who think the earth is 6000 years old did not go unnoticed.

I also know that this is another attempt to belittle me as I questioned your belief in evolution has

not being mathematicaly probable to say the least.  You seem to slide back and forth concerning

science of probability theory.  You attempt to muddy the water again by ridicual.  The bible does

not say the earth is 6000 years old, that figure is taken from the time of adam until now.  The bible

does say that God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  It also says that with God

a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day, meaning that God is outside of time.

As you have said in the past, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bull-Shi*."

RL

....

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 3:36 pm - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

"If you believe the lottery is truly random then it is you that are misguided. This bit of information is no doubt wasted on you as you live in a box of sand with your head buried in the ass of others works."

What criteria or analysis do YOU employ to determine if a series is "truly random?"  Much effort has gone into measuring the degree of randomness of stochastic processes, including lottery draws.  I know it really seems to annoy (irritate?) you when people cite the work of others when challenging your beliefs, but since I'm a firm believer in the value of NOT trying to "reinvent the wheel," I must annoy you again.  If you Google "measures of randomness", I think you'll find a lot of support for the fact that lotteries are "Sufficiently Random" for the purposes of conducting a fair game when the possible outcomes are a few hundred million or less.

As for the ARBITRARY labeling of the balls, I'm sorry you can't see why this point alone is sufficient to expose your digit analyses as a complete waste of time.

No matter how hard you try to dissociate your methods from what is commonly called the Gambler's Fallacy, or the Posterior Probability Error, you fail to hide the fact that you are analyzing past draws and using your results to select what you believe are sets of numbers that are more likely to be drawn in the future.  And Randomness will always provide you with short term fuel to feed your Confirmation Bias.

Could if be that citations are anathema to you because, in your experience, the vast majority of scholarly articles related to your work completely disagree with you?  Or perhaps you tried to publish your ideas and had them rejected by editors.

Have Fun!

--Jimmy4164

P.S. Does it bother you at all that there are emergency room physicians misdiagnosing critically ill patients because they have been influenced by the kinds of fallacies that you propagate here?

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4287 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 10:01 pm - IP Logged

Jimbo

Do you have a list of the people who have died using my digit system or are
you just thinking out loud? If you think mistakes made by doctors are directly
linked to their lack of understanding of probability theory then you are even
dumber than I assumed.  Thomas Bayes taught us how to correctly make informed
decisions based on probabilities of possible outcomes. Most doctors have software
which allows them to input symptoms and then a prognosis it calculated based on
data gathered over many years of practical real world observations. In lottery
a 50/50 chance of winning would be great however when applied to life or death
most would not consider it that great. It's the investment that seems to give
one greater value than the other.  If I was going to die without treatment then
50/50 seems prety good odds, even 1/99 may look perty good in some cases.

There is no common ground between you and I. I have no problems with probability
theory, it's just your interpretation of it.  The digit system works but requires
the user to develop some skills and master the concept which you have chosen not
to do.  You make what you consider well informed decisions based on your one size
fits all approach which is about as unscientific as it gets.

Everyone that does not agree with you is considered wrong and is guilty of gamblers
fallacy. If a persons methods do not perform to their expectations then they can
choose something else.  The odds are clearly expressed for every lottery game that
I have ever played and I have no problem with those calculations.

From your remarks it's evident that you don't understand the concepts behind the
digit system.  Run you simulation as many times as you want and you will see that
your line will fall to the calculated odds for the game.  My changing the lines I
play every game based on what I see as having a greater probably of showing will
do far better than your static line ever will. The only problem I have found with
the digit system is that it's not enough to reduce to a playable number of lines
and requires other types of filtering.

You believe that I just can't see what your saying, cause if I did it would change
my mind about smart pics. Let me assure you that nothing you have said went over my
head it's just I have found better information. The proof is in the pudding or in my
case the number of prize paying tickets I manage to purchase.

I have trapped over 100 5of5's over the years in less than 200 lines and many in 100
or less. The problem lies with filtering sets that are already optimized.  Similar
to filtering the sets generated by a wheel.  Remove one set then the wheel no longer
maintains it's guarantee.

Go ahead and demand mathematical proof for a system that is not based on math alone
but requires personal abilities.

sufficiently random = not random, close maybe but I have seen too many that failed over

time.  It's why so many are still working on it.

....

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
4287 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 28, 2014, 10:40 pm - IP Logged

Jimbo

You forget that my state uses a RNG, NO balls, NO colors, nothing but ones and zeros.

As I said above the proof is in the pudding or in my case the winning tickets.

RL

As for the ARBITRARY labeling of the balls, I'm sorry you can't see why this point alone is sufficient to expose your digit analyses as a complete waste of time.

No matter how hard you try to dissociate your methods from what is commonly called the Gambler's Fallacy, or the Posterior Probability Error, you fail to hide the fact that you are analyzing past draws and using your results to select what you believe are sets of numbers that are more likely to be drawn in the future.  And Randomness will always provide you with short term fuel to feed your Confirmation Bias.

....

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 29, 2014, 1:06 am - IP Logged

RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

When you said,

"Do you have a list of the people who have died using my digit system or are
you just thinking out loud? If you think mistakes made by doctors are directly
linked to their lack of understanding of probability theory then you are even
dumber than I assumed."

...you managed to make a fool out of yourself again.  I don't have the list you asked for, and I doubt if such a list exists.  But I do have a list of some of the cognitive errors that doctors have made in their diagnoses.  I have highlighted the ones that should be of particular interest to you, and included the the descriptions of several. If you would like to view the entire list, as well as some tips on how you might overcome some of these pitfalls in thinking, CLICK HERE:

Aggregate bias
Anchoring
Ascertainment bias
Availability
Base-rate neglect

Confirmation bias
The tendency to look for confirming evidence to support a diagnosis rather than look for disconfirming evidence to refute it, despite the latter often being more persuasive and definitive.

Diagnosis momentum
Feedback sanction
Framing effect

Gambler’s fallacy

Hindsight bias
Multiple alternatives bias
Omission bias
Order effects
Outcome bias
Overconfidence bias
Playing the odds

Posterior probability error

Premature closure
Psych-out error
Representativeness restraint
Search satisfying
Sutton’s slip

Sunk costs  (This may be your downfall.)
The more clinicians invest in a particular diagnosis, the less likely they may be to release it and consider alternatives. This is an entrapment form of CDR more associated with investment and financial considerations. However, for the diagnostician, the investment is time and mental energy and, for some, EGO may be a precious investment.

Triage cueing
Unpacking principle
Vertical line failure
Visceral bias
Yin-Yang out

--Jimmy4164

 Page 4 of 14