Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 24, 2017, 12:02 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

So what would the "Holy Grail" of Pick 3 playing be?

Topic closed. 268 replies. Last post 2 years ago by Atomic Dog.

Page 12 of 18
4.17
PrintE-mailLink
jimjwright's avatar - Yellow 3.png
Park City, UT
United States
Member #69864
January 18, 2009
995 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 31, 2014, 7:13 pm - IP Logged

 Well, that's not much of a defense for a method that's so overrated. But, it doesn't matter whether the Midday and Evening are combined or not. This method must work in any case to be reliable. So, why are combined draws included in Win D's double trap chart? There's no reason why I can't do the same thing then.

 Btw, why are you speaking for Win D? Better yet, why do you even feel the need to come to his defense?  Instead, you should be working on a solution ,or work-around, to this problem. So, where is Win D on this? Why don't we hear from him, himself, what he has to say?

 Anyway, Win D may be smarter than anyone else you know, but that doesn't ,necessarily, mean that he's the smartest one on here. So, if he's so smart than he should be able to solve this problem. For that matter, there ,already, is a solution to this problem and it exists within my own system.

 Btw, why are you speaking for Win D? Better yet, why do you even feel the need to come to his defense?  Instead, you should be working on a solution ,or work-around, to this problem. So, where is Win D on this? Why don't we hear from him, himself, what he has to say?

I don't need to find a solution to the double trap problem because I have better method/indicators that have absolutely nothing to do with doubles but I won't be sharing them here on LP for free.

Jimmy

    jimjwright's avatar - Yellow 3.png
    Park City, UT
    United States
    Member #69864
    January 18, 2009
    995 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 31, 2014, 7:23 pm - IP Logged

     Well, that's not much of a defense for a method that's so overrated. But, it doesn't matter whether the Midday and Evening are combined or not. This method must work in any case to be reliable. So, why are combined draws included in Win D's double trap chart? There's no reason why I can't do the same thing then.

     Btw, why are you speaking for Win D? Better yet, why do you even feel the need to come to his defense?  Instead, you should be working on a solution ,or work-around, to this problem. So, where is Win D on this? Why don't we hear from him, himself, what he has to say?

     Anyway, Win D may be smarter than anyone else you know, but that doesn't ,necessarily, mean that he's the smartest one on here. So, if he's so smart than he should be able to solve this problem. For that matter, there ,already, is a solution to this problem and it exists within my own system.

    So, why are combined draws included in Win D's double trap chart?

    I wrote the software not WinD so I can do whatever I want.

    Jimmy

      Prometheus1's avatar - trace9

      United States
      Member #1344
      April 6, 2003
      177 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 31, 2014, 10:36 pm - IP Logged

       Well, unfortunately, the empirical data does NOT support Win D's double trap. As a matter of fact, it didn't take long ,at all, to find that the empirical evidence ,overwhelmingly, refutes it.

       Anyway, the back-testing was done on one state and has ,before long, shown significant losing streaks with way too many consecutive losses. The fact is that if something fails in one state then you can expect it to do worse when playing many states. So, Win D's double trap can be considered to be ,officially, debunked. But, no offense to Win D though.

      WARNING: Do NOT use Win D's double trap for real-world game play. Especially, when playing a lot of money as Jimjwright suggested.

      I haven't seen anything. Anything a reasonable person can even remotely call "Empirical" evidence in this so called "debunking" of yours Pick 3 guy. You are late to the party. 

      Pretty raw language too. Very raw in fact. To "Warn" without showing any detailed written out examples. Just saying words like "Empirical" is not showing anything empirical at all. Words don't count no matter how RED you color your so called debunking alerts. Crayon words are not proof. 

       If you think Cherry picking 30 draws out of the 100's of thousands of draws over 20 or 30 years is empirical data, well, that is a laugh. That is called narrow evidence and "Anecdotal"  evidence not empirical. All the serious statisticians as well as any courts of law just call that "Silly" and toss it out as empty proofs or just "hear say."  If the idea is wrong then how wrong is it? Exactly and math wise! You have to prove it by exact measure. It must be beyond any doubt to have the right to say it much less yell it in RED.  You have to show the work. 

      Our idea is that you don't know how to prove it one way or the other math wise. I don't think you even know how to show how many double gaps New York had in the last 366 draws. Combined or otherwise. Much less other states. You have no skills of proof otherwise you would have shown it by now. If not, I suggest you find another post to alert on and to "Warn"on. It is very obvious to several people here already that this is grandstanding. To "debunk" is above your skills. Way more than you can handle with math or software. This has already been tested out years ago by a lot more savvy players in general and one overly nervous sounding one in particular. Years ago before multi -state play made it a more popular playing filter tool. 

      How do we know this?

      Because we already know. We already know how many double gaps New York and many other STATES had over the last 366 draws mid-eve- combined. If you knew how to find those Primary things out you would already know you blew it. It's already there staring at anyone who knows how to get there. The way you went about this was much too RED, LOUD and wrong.           

        PROMETHEUS       


        United States
        Member #155994
        June 5, 2014
        497 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 31, 2014, 10:42 pm - IP Logged

         Btw, why are you speaking for Win D? Better yet, why do you even feel the need to come to his defense?  Instead, you should be working on a solution ,or work-around, to this problem. So, where is Win D on this? Why don't we hear from him, himself, what he has to say?

        I don't need to find a solution to the double trap problem because I have better method/indicators that have absolutely nothing to do with doubles but I won't be sharing them here on LP for free.

        Jimmy

         Well, is that ,maybe, to say that you're sharing them for a price?


          United States
          Member #155994
          June 5, 2014
          497 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 31, 2014, 10:42 pm - IP Logged

          So, why are combined draws included in Win D's double trap chart?

          I wrote the software not WinD so I can do whatever I want.

          Jimmy

           Well, that's besides the point. But, if it's your software then why isn't it called jimjwright's double trap?

            PeerGynt's avatar - nw archer.jpg
            Simi Valley, CA
            United States
            Member #156940
            July 4, 2014
            675 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: November 1, 2014, 12:54 am - IP Logged

             Well, first of all, there are 210 numbers when boxing. Also, triples can't be boxed. But, the law of averages says nothing about how many plays. This is just what you're saying.

            Sorry, you're right, Pick3Guy, there are indeed 210.  I forgot to double the doubles boxes.

            I'm actually trying to say this:

            The California D3 at least, its method (imho) is to keep things - I mean, on a grand scale: in the scheme of things - I mean, over a long (infinite?) period of time - its goal is to keep things even.

            If you can somehow key into how the game keeps things even... you'll have ways to key into secret strategies.

            A purely random universe doesn't care, no, if a given pair is played once then goes away for a long period of time then comes back and then, to make things even, replays itself fairly quickly the next time.

            But a game that's designed to keep things "even," does care.

            So what are these "things" I'm talking about?

            In my opinion, an example of what these things are not?  Individual plays represented as three digit numbers.  A number like, oh, say, 377.  Which hasn't appeared in the California D3 for well over a year now.  There are not a few numbers that haven't appeared for multiple years.

            In my opinion, an example of what these things are?...

            You tell me.  Wink

            We have no dreams at all, or interesting ones. We should learn to be awake the same way—not at all, or in an interesting manner.   -- Friedrich Nietzsche

              PeerGynt's avatar - nw archer.jpg
              Simi Valley, CA
              United States
              Member #156940
              July 4, 2014
              675 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: November 1, 2014, 1:25 am - IP Logged

               Well, of course, the computerized drawings are not truly random. The algorithm is a pseudorandom number generator(PRNG). But, you can ,probably, forget about anyone figuring it out. This is only wishful thinking.

               Anyway, what exactly makes you believe that they "tinkered" with the algorithm and ,also, for the purpose of frustrating players? Even if they did, there are other possible reasons for doing so. For example, to either fix an issue or ,simply, make it better. Just fyi, there have been glitches found in these algorithms before. Another reason is for security purposes. It may be important for them to ,periodically, change the algorithm to help protect against fraud.

              I completely believe they "tinker" with the algorithm - but when I say tinker, I mean it's the equivalent of the dealer gathering the cards from the players and saying, "Okay, now instead of deuces wild, we're gonna play aces low," etc.  All essential remains the same... but there's a little bitty spin on the core fundamentals.

              Btw, this is why I don't believe any one "system" will work with the D3.  Though already, I have to define that term: I mean, individual methods or approaches to winning.  A "theory of the game" is beyond any system - do any of you here have one?  Your own theories of how the game works, what it's doing on a grand scale, what it's trying to achieve, etc.?  Within that theoretical framework, one then fashions methods of approach to winning.  No one theory of the game is correct, or incorrect.  Adobea has his own grand theory of the game, and he's developed his unique approach to it based on that theory; with it, he's proved amazingly successful.

              It doesn't work all the time for him - it doesn't need to, but plainly, his method doesn't "work" all the time, because it often takes many plays to get a hit.  (But is his plan to hit eventually?... that erases all the losses... his definition of "working," then, does work all the time: but for the sake of argument, I will continue:)  I actually buck the conventional wisdom here, in believing: indeed, one CAN win every single time one plays, absolutely; or a majority of the time.  But one also can play the piano like a virtuoso, or golf like Tiger (in his prime), or perform illusions like Houdini, or play Hamlet like Olivier... such things aren't just going to happen overnight; and they wouldn't just happen even were you handed the game's secret formula on a silver platter.

              You can know all the rules to Blackjack - now, get good at it.

              How do you get to Carnegie Hall, again? Smile

              We have no dreams at all, or interesting ones. We should learn to be awake the same way—not at all, or in an interesting manner.   -- Friedrich Nietzsche


                United States
                Member #155994
                June 5, 2014
                497 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: November 1, 2014, 2:18 am - IP Logged

                I haven't seen anything. Anything a reasonable person can even remotely call "Empirical" evidence in this so called "debunking" of yours Pick 3 guy. You are late to the party. 

                Pretty raw language too. Very raw in fact. To "Warn" without showing any detailed written out examples. Just saying words like "Empirical" is not showing anything empirical at all. Words don't count no matter how RED you color your so called debunking alerts. Crayon words are not proof. 

                 If you think Cherry picking 30 draws out of the 100's of thousands of draws over 20 or 30 years is empirical data, well, that is a laugh. That is called narrow evidence and "Anecdotal"  evidence not empirical. All the serious statisticians as well as any courts of law just call that "Silly" and toss it out as empty proofs or just "hear say."  If the idea is wrong then how wrong is it? Exactly and math wise! You have to prove it by exact measure. It must be beyond any doubt to have the right to say it much less yell it in RED.  You have to show the work. 

                Our idea is that you don't know how to prove it one way or the other math wise. I don't think you even know how to show how many double gaps New York had in the last 366 draws. Combined or otherwise. Much less other states. You have no skills of proof otherwise you would have shown it by now. If not, I suggest you find another post to alert on and to "Warn"on. It is very obvious to several people here already that this is grandstanding. To "debunk" is above your skills. Way more than you can handle with math or software. This has already been tested out years ago by a lot more savvy players in general and one overly nervous sounding one in particular. Years ago before multi -state play made it a more popular playing filter tool. 

                How do we know this?

                Because we already know. We already know how many double gaps New York and many other STATES had over the last 366 draws mid-eve- combined. If you knew how to find those Primary things out you would already know you blew it. It's already there staring at anyone who knows how to get there. The way you went about this was much too RED, LOUD and wrong.           

                 Well, you seem to be in denial. But, I can sense your frustration over this. Still, the evidence, empirical or anecdotal, speaks something about Win D's double trap. Btw, there was no "cherry picking" involved. These are all recent draws from my own state.

                 Anyway, the only real laugh is your refusal to accept the facts. Fyi, these observations ,with many consecutive losses, can be made in multiple states. As mentioned, one would just need to check over the history. But, apparently, this won't make any difference with you.

                 So, where's the math that proves Win D's double trap? Did you really think it just comes down to counting double gaps and nothing more is needed? How do you explain the failure of Win D's double trap with these observations? This is not an isolated case. Again, this can be seen in multiple states.

                 Now, is Win D's double trap wrong? From a logical standpoint, within my system, the answer is no. There was even evidence found to back this up. According to the logic, certain ,theoretical, patterns would have to exist. These exact patterns were ,indeed, found. Even so, within my system, Win D's double trap is considered to be overkill.

                 But, if it makes sense then why is it a problem? The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. There is no safeguard to protect players from these kinds of losing streaks. The fact is that there will be long-outs and something more is needed to address this.

                  jimjwright's avatar - Yellow 3.png
                  Park City, UT
                  United States
                  Member #69864
                  January 18, 2009
                  995 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: November 1, 2014, 7:03 am - IP Logged

                   Well, that's besides the point. But, if it's your software then why isn't it called jimjwright's double trap?

                  If it makes you feel better thinking I did not write the software then go ahead thinking that but that is probably "besides the point" right? LMAO

                  Jimmy

                    Prometheus1's avatar - trace9

                    United States
                    Member #1344
                    April 6, 2003
                    177 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: November 1, 2014, 9:38 am - IP Logged

                     Well, you seem to be in denial. But, I can sense your frustration over this. Still, the evidence, empirical or anecdotal, speaks something about Win D's double trap. Btw, there was no "cherry picking" involved. These are all recent draws from my own state.

                     Anyway, the only real laugh is your refusal to accept the facts. Fyi, these observations ,with many consecutive losses, can be made in multiple states. As mentioned, one would just need to check over the history. But, apparently, this won't make any difference with you.

                     So, where's the math that proves Win D's double trap? Did you really think it just comes down to counting double gaps and nothing more is needed? How do you explain the failure of Win D's double trap with these observations? This is not an isolated case. Again, this can be seen in multiple states.

                     Now, is Win D's double trap wrong? From a logical standpoint, within my system, the answer is no. There was even evidence found to back this up. According to the logic, certain ,theoretical, patterns would have to exist. These exact patterns were ,indeed, found. Even so, within my system, Win D's double trap is considered to be overkill.

                     But, if it makes sense then why is it a problem? The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. There is no safeguard to protect players from these kinds of losing streaks. The fact is that there will be long-outs and something more is needed to address this.

                    Are you saying you are basing your reputation on those few flimsy recent draws in just one State and ignoring the hundreds of thousands of other draws? Is that it? Because that is all you have shown. Nothing. 

                     Surely, you can easily call out one thing at least. At the very least you must know ONE little detail.  For you to have gone out on such a thin limb. 

                       IF you can't answer this  question Straight up then all of your running around yelling in Red is worthless. Because there is a strong possibility you don't know how this works.

                     

                        A doubles trap event is a set up of 10 draws with or with out a Double. Win/or/Lose  Your example showed 3 of these 10 draw events and all 3 lost at the end of your 366 draws going back ONE YEAR . How many gaps of 10 single numbers happen?

                         Not 9 events! This showed ONLY 3 Double Trap events or examples. These 3 examples happened all in a row and at the end of the 366 draws.  Starting today, and going back at least 366 draws in your state for the last year answer this. How many of these 10 draw doubles traps occurred? How many contained a double? How many did not? Simple. 

                                                   If you care to use any other STATE for the last year or the last 366 draws that's just fine. We can follow any of those going back one year as well.     

                     

                     Very Simple Question:

                               How many times in the last year/366 did this 10 day event "Doubles Trap" work/fail in your state (your choice any state) for Mid/Eve/Combined

                     

                    1.  Eve draws?     Number  #Fail _?__      #Succeed__?__

                    2.  midday draws  ?

                    3. Combined draws ?

                      PROMETHEUS       

                      jimjwright's avatar - Yellow 3.png
                      Park City, UT
                      United States
                      Member #69864
                      January 18, 2009
                      995 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: November 1, 2014, 10:42 am - IP Logged

                      Pick3Guy is right the double trap has not performed very well in New York for 2014

                      Here is a snapshot (from software that I apparently did not write) where I have highlighted a few states.  The important column is "2014 Single Runs Greater than 6".

                      Double Trap Tracking History

                      This column tracks the number of times you had consecutive singles streak greater than 6 that was ended with a double.  You win on the trap play if you see 7, 8, or 9 in this column.  Anything greater than 9 and you lose.

                      Using New York Combined draws its easy to see it does not perform very well.

                      On the other hand the other two states South Carolina Pick 3 Evening, and Tennessee Cash 3 Evening it did perform well for 2014.  Random sure is a jokester.

                      Tialuvslotto has already correctly answered the question in that the trap works 61% of the time which is shown in the following screen shots again from software that I apparently did not write.

                      The left column 7 tells you how many times a double hit after 7 consecutive singles for all the U.S. Lottery games in 2014 so far.  The left column 8 tells you many times a double hit after 8 consecutive singles and so on.  So if you highlight the 3 traps 7, 8, 9 and add up the percentages you get approximately 61%.  I provided the history for both 2014 and 2013 and amazingly its 61% for both years.

                      Distribution of hits for 2014

                      Distribution of hits for 2013

                      In case you are interested here is the current list of state games where doubles have been missing for 7 or more draws.

                      Current state listing

                      Jimmy

                        Prometheus1's avatar - trace9

                        United States
                        Member #1344
                        April 6, 2003
                        177 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: November 1, 2014, 11:18 am - IP Logged

                        Pick3Guy is right the double trap has not performed very well in New York for 2014

                        Here is a snapshot (from software that I apparently did not write) where I have highlighted a few states.  The important column is "2014 Single Runs Greater than 6".

                        Double Trap Tracking History

                        This column tracks the number of times you had consecutive singles streak greater than 6 that was ended with a double.  You win on the trap play if you see 7, 8, or 9 in this column.  Anything greater than 9 and you lose.

                        Using New York Combined draws its easy to see it does not perform very well.

                        On the other hand the other two states South Carolina Pick 3 Evening, and Tennessee Cash 3 Evening it did perform well for 2014.  Random sure is a jokester.

                        Tialuvslotto has already correctly answered the question in that the trap works 61% of the time which is shown in the following screen shots again from software that I apparently did not write.

                        The left column 7 tells you how many times a double hit after 7 consecutive singles for all the U.S. Lottery games in 2014 so far.  The left column 8 tells you many times a double hit after 8 consecutive singles and so on.  So if you highlight the 3 traps 7, 8, 9 and add up the percentages you get approximately 61%.  I provided the history for both 2014 and 2013 and amazingly its 61% for both years.

                        Distribution of hits for 2014

                        Distribution of hits for 2013

                        In case you are interested here is the current list of state games where doubles have been missing for 7 or more draws.

                        Current state listing

                        Jimmy

                        Jimmy I can't believe you let him off like that. He was supposed to be on his own with no hints or help. He was to produce actual results for one year. This would have at least shown us his ability to understand. Could have shown something like an actual success rate or some math of his very own. His math which is still unknown and still missing.     

                        We still needed that EXACT answer however. How many 10 number gaps exist in the last 365 draws on New York Eve draws, Mid, or Combined from this point back.

                         Come on now Jimmy,no more hints until we get his simple answer and show his work and how he arrived at it. Then we can see what the hang up is.

                          PROMETHEUS       

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #116344
                          September 8, 2011
                          3941 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: November 1, 2014, 11:26 am - IP Logged

                          Pick3Guy is right the double trap has not performed very well in New York for 2014

                          Here is a snapshot (from software that I apparently did not write) where I have highlighted a few states.  The important column is "2014 Single Runs Greater than 6".

                          Double Trap Tracking History

                          This column tracks the number of times you had consecutive singles streak greater than 6 that was ended with a double.  You win on the trap play if you see 7, 8, or 9 in this column.  Anything greater than 9 and you lose.

                          Using New York Combined draws its easy to see it does not perform very well.

                          On the other hand the other two states South Carolina Pick 3 Evening, and Tennessee Cash 3 Evening it did perform well for 2014.  Random sure is a jokester.

                          Tialuvslotto has already correctly answered the question in that the trap works 61% of the time which is shown in the following screen shots again from software that I apparently did not write.

                          The left column 7 tells you how many times a double hit after 7 consecutive singles for all the U.S. Lottery games in 2014 so far.  The left column 8 tells you many times a double hit after 8 consecutive singles and so on.  So if you highlight the 3 traps 7, 8, 9 and add up the percentages you get approximately 61%.  I provided the history for both 2014 and 2013 and amazingly its 61% for both years.

                          Distribution of hits for 2014

                          Distribution of hits for 2013

                          In case you are interested here is the current list of state games where doubles have been missing for 7 or more draws.

                          Current state listing

                          Jimmy

                          May be am missing something here, is this 'Double Trap' a waging strategy or Prediction method? I think there is a difference.

                            Prometheus1's avatar - trace9

                            United States
                            Member #1344
                            April 6, 2003
                            177 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: November 1, 2014, 11:35 am - IP Logged

                            May be am missing something here, is this 'Double Trap' a waging strategy or Prediction method? I think there is a difference.

                            Let's wait for Pick-3 guy to answer before we go off on another tangent.  According to him we don't know the precise level of success/failure of this "exercise."

                              PROMETHEUS       

                              Avatar

                              United States
                              Member #116344
                              September 8, 2011
                              3941 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: November 1, 2014, 11:57 am - IP Logged

                              For the record, I think WIN D rocks! Cool  He has developed a wide range of innovative methods for Pick 3 that WORK.  And, he has been incredibly generous in sharing his methods with the LP Community.

                              Now, can I please re-focus this discussion on the point that I was trying to make?

                              Pick3guy claimed that the law of averages could tell you how often to expect any given event, but not how many draws to play.  I argue that the probability distribution does give information on how many draws to play for optimal coverage. 

                              So, my POINT would be that the "holy grail" of Pick 3 would be to track the data in order to pick up on any anomalies and then use the distribution of that event to define your playing window.  I like to wait for long-out events that have a 0.95 or higher probability of success within a few draws.

                              Or, as discussed earlier by Peer Gynt, just play the "zero skip", i.e. capitalize on the fact that many events in Pick 3 have a high probability of repeating.  For example, doubles have a 0.27 probability of repeating, or about a 1 in 4 chance of success.  So also, for any of the 50/50 splits, the 2/1 or 1/2 configuration (eg HHL or EOO) has a 0.38 probability of repeat or about a 1 in 3 chance of success.  And so it is for many of the statistics in the Pick 3 game.

                              I understand all the statistical drive within a normal distribution, but it seems all this debate  is focus on ' a type' of data-Historical. Ponder on this for a moment, lets assume your State introduces a new lottery game with a matrix x/N, how do you wage with historical data? , are you going to wait for enough data before you start waging?. Statistics is a waging strategy not a prediction method. Waging strategy and prediction method should be clear and defined, else you 'll be chasing your own tail.

                                 
                                Page 12 of 18