Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 2, 2016, 11:40 pm
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
54
PrintE-mailLink

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.

    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

    United States
    Member #59354
    March 13, 2008
    3962 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

    Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

    I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

    they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

    USAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Base_Engineer_Emergency_Force

      US Flag Trump / 2016 & 2020  

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19816 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. Wink

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

        Avatar
        Kentucky
        United States
        Member #32652
        February 14, 2006
        7295 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 27, 2014, 6:42 pm - IP Logged

        Profit! Thumbs Up

        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. Wink

          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.

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19816 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 * 
               
                         Evil Looking       


              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

                RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                mid-Ohio
                United States
                Member #9
                March 24, 2001
                19816 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 * 
                   
                             Evil Looking       


                  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?

                  https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/273424/3539069

                  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

                    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                    United States
                    Member #59354
                    March 13, 2008
                    3962 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.

                    You comments above about "labeling balls" just reinforces my views of your attitude that your view,

                    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

                    Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

                    I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

                    they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

                    USAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Base_Engineer_Emergency_Force

                      US Flag Trump / 2016 & 2020  

                      RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                      United States
                      Member #59354
                      March 13, 2008
                      3962 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

                      Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

                      I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

                      they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

                      USAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Base_Engineer_Emergency_Force

                        US Flag Trump / 2016 & 2020  


                        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?


                          RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                          United States
                          Member #59354
                          March 13, 2008
                          3962 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.

                          Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

                          I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

                          they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

                          USAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Base_Engineer_Emergency_Force

                            US Flag Trump / 2016 & 2020  

                            RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                            United States
                            Member #59354
                            March 13, 2008
                            3962 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. 

                            not interested in your nonsense.

                            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.

                            Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

                            I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

                            they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

                            USAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Base_Engineer_Emergency_Force

                              US Flag Trump / 2016 & 2020  


                              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:

                              http://www.jround.co.uk/error/reading/crosskerry1.pdf

                              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
                              Fundamental attribution error

                              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