Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 18, 2017, 3:03 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Do Lottery Software program help YOU WIN lottery?

Topic closed. 160 replies. Last post 2 years ago by psykomo.

Page 7 of 11
54
PrintE-mailLink

Do YOU have GOOD Software program???

YES [ 42 ]  [42.86%]
NO [ 44 ]  [44.90%]
Maby [ 8 ]  [8.16%]
secret (bad luck 2 tell) [ 4 ]  [4.08%]
Total Valid Votes [ 98 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 10 ]  
SergeM's avatar - slow icon.png
Economy class
Belgium
Member #123700
February 27, 2012
4035 Posts
Offline
Posted: June 6, 2014, 6:51 pm - IP Logged

I picked up keno again this week. I won 63 + 1 + 7.5 euros this week thanks to Serge++.


    United States
    Member #93947
    July 10, 2010
    2180 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: June 7, 2014, 4:01 pm - IP Logged

    "Lottery software (and all lottery systems) have been debunked, theoretically, and through simulations, some of them published here at LP."

    LMAO @ theoretically!!!

    It would really help your simulation result credibility if you could find even one real live lottery player who bought five $1 pick-3 QPs every drawing for five years. Is theoretically debunking lottery systems and software anything like when LP members discuss spending theoretically jackpot winnings?

    "they jump to the conclusion"

    And no different than you jumping to the conclusion "But most readers and posters in these forums either don't understand or mistrust the results." Very few LP members engage in discussions with you and and of those who have, only a couple agreed with you once in awhile.

    Stack47,

    "It would really help your simulation result credibility if you could find even one real live lottery player who bought five $1 pick-3 QPs every drawing for five years."

    You never seem to tire of repeating this ridiculous mantra.  It does no more than continue to reveal your total misunderstanding of the purpose and value of computer simulations.  Such a simulation is not designed to prove that people do or should play this way, (although, given the randomness of the draws, it is a perfectly reasonable approach) - it is designed to show what is most likely to happen if someone did.  And if you think back to my simulations of Pick-3, there were lots of long term winners produced, purely by chance!

    You will never accept playing the same sets of numbers consistantly or randomly because you believe you can choose your bets like a boxer chooses his punching opportunities. 

    Note carefully how the Lottery fits in here.

    And take another look at the simulations.

    --Jimmy4164

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7341 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: June 7, 2014, 6:07 pm - IP Logged

      Stack47,

      "It would really help your simulation result credibility if you could find even one real live lottery player who bought five $1 pick-3 QPs every drawing for five years."

      You never seem to tire of repeating this ridiculous mantra.  It does no more than continue to reveal your total misunderstanding of the purpose and value of computer simulations.  Such a simulation is not designed to prove that people do or should play this way, (although, given the randomness of the draws, it is a perfectly reasonable approach) - it is designed to show what is most likely to happen if someone did.  And if you think back to my simulations of Pick-3, there were lots of long term winners produced, purely by chance!

      You will never accept playing the same sets of numbers consistantly or randomly because you believe you can choose your bets like a boxer chooses his punching opportunities. 

      Note carefully how the Lottery fits in here.

      And take another look at the simulations.

      --Jimmy4164

      "It does no more than continue to reveal your total misunderstanding of the purpose and value of computer simulations."

      You'll never understand that you're not simulating real pick-3 wagering making your efforts useless.

        lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

        Greece
        Member #2815
        November 18, 2003
        502 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: June 7, 2014, 6:52 pm - IP Logged

        @mypiemaster
        "There is no reason, for a program that works, to be on sale to the public. If it actually works, the developers will be too busy, raking in millions every week, instead of wasting their time selling the program for mere pittance. People by nature, do not like to share a cashcow."

        Of course, if it was possible for any program/method to propose a small set of lines and have the winning combination in there every so often, nobody would share it. We don't talk about that here, this is impossible. We talk about improving odds to the point of making lottery enjoyable and why not, profitable even if this is via small wins hoping to get the big bucks some day. Thus, your whole sentence is pointless to this discussion. Why such a program shouldn't be made available under your logic, if it gives better value to the money spent by improving odds and/or making the whole lottery playing experience more enjoyable??

        @jimmy4164
        "Lottery software (and all lottery systems) have been debunked, theoretically, and through simulations, some of them published here at LP."

        That is funny. You try to simulate a physical device with what?? A PRNG program? You forget all the physical factors involved in the way draws are made in a barrel; You have no idea what these physical factors are, even more to somehow model them in your simulation, thus any conclusions on lottery draws via simulations are worthless, plain as that.
        Bottom line, simulations to estimate the behavior, or used to conclude anything about lottery draws made in barrels is ridiculous right at the beginning. Unless if you have a real drawing machine and do test runs there, your whole comment is debunked.

        Since both of you are fans of lotteries drawn in a barrel being completely random events, which you take for granted, please comment on the following real examples, what do you think:

        1. An 6/49 game, the player picks 12 numbers every time. Managed 4 times in a row to match 4 correct numbers in his selection.
        2. A 5/45 + 1/20 PB lotto game. Player picks 18 numbers every time for the main field and 1 number for the powerball field. Draws come twice every week, makes about 104 draws annually. Managed 3 times all 5 correct numbers in his selection of 18 numbers within a year, in one of them also matched the PB number. Also, within a month had twice that event of 5 correct numbers (that means within 8-10 draws, produced twice the 5 match).

        There are more examples like the above, just your opinion if these are "dumb luck", debunked theoretically or what.


          United States
          Member #93947
          July 10, 2010
          2180 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: June 7, 2014, 7:06 pm - IP Logged

          "It does no more than continue to reveal your total misunderstanding of the purpose and value of computer simulations."

          You'll never understand that you're not simulating real pick-3 wagering making your efforts useless.

          Stack47: Don't you want to ask professors Binder and Heermann how their work with computer simulations in Statistical Physics helps in the analysis of Traffic Flows and Stock Market Fluctuations?

          Lottoarchitect:  Dumb Luck.  And you're confused.

          --Jimmy4164

            lottoarchitect's avatar - waveform

            Greece
            Member #2815
            November 18, 2003
            502 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: June 7, 2014, 7:12 pm - IP Logged

            I didn't expect a different answer really given your blind belief lottery draws in a barrel are completely random events, I don't blame you most people believe that for granted. You didn't even bother to do the maths, perhaps you get confused with the astronomical odds beaten. It's ok, nothing to worry about. All I can say then, my clients are really very very lucky every so often. At least they smile Big Smile

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19897 Posts
              Online
              Posted: June 9, 2014, 2:35 pm - IP Logged

              Promotes is a carefully chosen word that can mean a number of things to different people.

              Lotto-Logix is a hobby site, not a business, accepts no paid ads or ads in exchange for products, etc.

              Some things that may look like ads, such as the USA MEGA ad, is there because it makes the site look more professional at no charge or exchange of any kind.  I still pay full price for my subscription like everyone else who pays here.

              I do not review software, except in a few rare cases when pressed to and usually not published as I also try to choose my words carefully.

              Pretty much all L-L lottery product descriptions are in the product author's own words, not mine, with perhaps a little editing.

              If a product offers an affiliate program, I subscribe, not being stupid enough to turn down free money for doing nothing more then I would have done anyway.  I do not promote an affiliate link over another and am happy to list all quality lottery products I can find without regard to whether they have an affiliate program or not.  Pretty much anyone can right click a link and see if there is affliate code and backspace over it back to the domain if they don't want to support the site or as some do, switch out the code for theirs and get a discount for themselves. 

              In a sense I promote all lottery products by listing them and linking to them. 

              From this thread you might think I am here promoting Lotwin, I am, but not for personal profit, I simply believe it is the best for it's purpose.  The Lotto Architect collection is also very good.  Most lottery software I've talked about over the years, Lottery Director, GH, Versa Bet, etc. don't even offer affiliate programs.  If you don't believe in lottery software, prove it can't work.

              Oh,  And I've never ever been offered a kickback to promote a product let alone received one, thought it would be flattering to be asked.  Embarassed

               BobP

              Regardless of what Jimmy says, your website has been a valuable resource for lottery players researching what lottery programs are available.  Some of the free ones might be harder to find without your website.

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

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7341 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: June 9, 2014, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

                You know, I know, and anybody who examined your simulations know you create a 1000 number raffle and call an average pick-3 game.

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7341 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: June 9, 2014, 4:25 pm - IP Logged

                  Regardless of what Jimmy says, your website has been a valuable resource for lottery players researching what lottery programs are available.  Some of the free ones might be harder to find without your website.

                  Jimmy still has no clue about the playing strategies of the average lottery player making it impossible for him to comprehend why BobP's website is a valuable tool for lots of lottery players.

                    rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
                    Texas
                    United States
                    Member #55889
                    October 23, 2007
                    5754 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: June 9, 2014, 7:47 pm - IP Logged

                    Jimmy still has no clue about the playing strategies of the average lottery player making it impossible for him to comprehend why BobP's website is a valuable tool for lots of lottery players.

                    He always thinks Bob has some ulterior motive. Personally, Bob put together a string of combos for Cash 5 for me, didn't charge me, didn't ask for anything. Bob is only interested in helping others increase their chances of winning.

                    CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

                    A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: June 9, 2014, 11:44 pm - IP Logged

                      Jimmy still has no clue about the playing strategies of the average lottery player making it impossible for him to comprehend why BobP's website is a valuable tool for lots of lottery players.

                      Stack47 you also said, "You'll never understand that you're not simulating real pick-3 wagering making your efforts useless."

                      Useless?  Your problem is that you [might] really believe that a complicated computer simulation accurately mimicking your way of playing Pick-3 would produce results indicating that it's possible to gain an edge that would allow you to beat the lottery over a long period of time.

                      I'm here to tell you that it won't.

                      Several of my simulation recaps clearly showed how subsets of players can come out ahead over time sans systems due to the variances inherent in games based on stochastic processes.  My most telling results were based on 12,000 actual Pick-3 draws in PA. (Look them up.)  People like you either have a psychological need to believe it's possible to systematically beat the lottery or a financial incentive to keep as many other people as possible believing they can.

                      Try Again and Think Harder!

                      --Jimmy4164,

                        Avatar
                        Kentucky
                        United States
                        Member #32652
                        February 14, 2006
                        7341 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: June 10, 2014, 1:35 am - IP Logged

                        He always thinks Bob has some ulterior motive. Personally, Bob put together a string of combos for Cash 5 for me, didn't charge me, didn't ask for anything. Bob is only interested in helping others increase their chances of winning.

                        I downloaded Lottery Director's Free Wheeling system in the 90s because of the analysing tools. I don't know if Jimmy is claiming he "debunked" that wheeling systems too, but it shouldn't matter because it's free.

                        When Bob wrote for Lotto World, I thought his articles were for the more experienced lottery players who understood wheels and the value of playing one as opposed to another. I believe Jimmy falls into the glass of clueless gamblers who can't understand why the real gamblers are betting on their conditions being met.

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7341 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 10, 2014, 2:07 am - IP Logged

                          Stack47 you also said, "You'll never understand that you're not simulating real pick-3 wagering making your efforts useless."

                          Useless?  Your problem is that you [might] really believe that a complicated computer simulation accurately mimicking your way of playing Pick-3 would produce results indicating that it's possible to gain an edge that would allow you to beat the lottery over a long period of time.

                          I'm here to tell you that it won't.

                          Several of my simulation recaps clearly showed how subsets of players can come out ahead over time sans systems due to the variances inherent in games based on stochastic processes.  My most telling results were based on 12,000 actual Pick-3 draws in PA. (Look them up.)  People like you either have a psychological need to believe it's possible to systematically beat the lottery or a financial incentive to keep as many other people as possible believing they can.

                          Try Again and Think Harder!

                          --Jimmy4164,

                          Your pick-3 raffle simulations have no value to real players and are useless.

                          "complicated computer simulation accurately mimicking"

                          If I'm reading that correctly, you're unaware that some state lotteries are using complicated computer software for their actually drawings. I'm pretty sure a complicated computer simulations of the TN Lottery drawings would be close to the real thing providing the "no repeat digits" was unchecked. You never provide the actual simulated drawing results when you test and why all your simulations are useless.

                          "Take my word for it" is as unscientific as it gets, speaking of snake oil salesman.

                          "My most telling results were based on 12,000 actual Pick-3 draws in PA."

                          And it showed the same data any novice pick-3 player already knew; some digits will be drawn more than others over time .

                          When are you going to answer that simple question I asked you a long time ago; of the 1000 possible pick-3 three digit straight combos, how many should we expect to see in the next 1000 drawings?

                          "People like you either have a psychological need to believe it's possible to systematically beat the lottery"

                          Lottery players are not trying to "beat the lottery", but win their fair share of daily and weekly prize payouts. Even you ought to know the players and not the state lotteries are funding the MM and PB jackpots and secondary prizes.

                            Avatar
                            Los Angeles
                            United States
                            Member #156178
                            June 10, 2014
                            34 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: June 10, 2014, 7:21 pm - IP Logged

                            The right program will defiantly HELP


                              United States
                              Member #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: June 11, 2014, 4:41 am - IP Logged

                              Stack47,

                              You asked, "When are you going to answer that simple question I asked you a long time ago; of the 1000 possible pick-3 three digit straight combos, how many should we expect to see in the next 1000 drawings?"

                              I'm surprised you didn't dazzle us with the answer when I ignored you.

                              The answer depends on what you mean by "expect."  If you mean what would the average be if you observed many sets of 1000 draws, then the answer would be approximately 632.

                              Now, perhaps you can tell us how many draws YOU "expect" would be necessary to be sure that ALL 1000 possibilities are drawn at least once.

                              That should be easy for you.

                              --Jimmy4164

                              P.S. What do you mean by your "fair share" of the daily and weekly prize payouts?
                              P.S.S.  Have you written to professors Binder & Heermann yet?

                                 
                                Page 7 of 11