Simi Valley, CA United States Member #156940 July 4, 2014 670 Posts Offline

Posted: September 20, 2014, 9:45 pm - IP Logged

Tia - I have noticed that "zero"-ing anything, can be a very good strategy. I.e., many people essentially measure the gaps between whatever it is they're tracking for plays: between all odd numbers, between short sums, falling digits, etc. So often, playing on the "zero" gap - meaning, the back-to-back play of X - is a smart strategy indeed! It happens lots. But I will go back to read the posts by Thoth.

Garyo - the idea of traps, to me, requires something in which to trap something - and that something is another way or term or idea for "pool." A giant pool example is dividing, say, all the singles boxes in two. Now, if one side A plays once, then twice, then thrice… well, you have essentially a fool-proof trap: it simply cannot go on playing side A forever… eventually it must hit side B, or the game is rigged or broken or will become a black hole and implode. Of course, this is simply too big a sampling for manageability, or profit.

So, one might think good traps are simply divvying up the 120 singles boxes, say, into groups of ten. I've done this… and it's great for seeing things going on in the game, the mysteries of play and whatnot… but not so great for actual playing. One group has been out an interminably long time right now (alert, for you CA gamers who are waiting for something to drop soon!): it contains these ten boxes exactly:

268 269 278 279 289 345 346 347 348 349

Wow, this set is taking a long time to pay off! Not like other sets… but hold on a minute, notice something: half of these boxes contain a single pair out of all forty-five available pairs, that one being

34

So if the game is persistently avoiding the 34 pair, then you're 50% S.O.L. already. And then, three of the five remaining, have second pair

28

So 80% of this set of ten numbers, relies upon 4% of the total available boxes! The two remaining numbers both contain pair

29

So see the strange mystery of numbers: out of the 120 availability of boxes, these ten in theory represent: 8.3% of the singles pool. But only three pairs represents 6.7% of the available pool - almost 2% less! Which is to say, this set of ten numbers is a bit of a Chinese finger trap: you can get stuck in its illusory odds.

Because if the game's simply avoiding for now a digit, or a pair... and it so often does that, as we all know… your odds go even more out the window. So the lesson I'm taking away is… systems should be fluid, flexible, and fast on their feet!

Dallas, Texas United States Member #4549 May 2, 2004 1684 Posts Offline

Posted: September 21, 2014, 12:17 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by PeerGynt on September 20, 2014

Tia - I have noticed that "zero"-ing anything, can be a very good strategy. I.e., many people essentially measure the gaps between whatever it is they're tracking for plays: between all odd numbers, between short sums, falling digits, etc. So often, playing on the "zero" gap - meaning, the back-to-back play of X - is a smart strategy indeed! It happens lots. But I will go back to read the posts by Thoth.

Garyo - the idea of traps, to me, requires something in which to trap something - and that something is another way or term or idea for "pool." A giant pool example is dividing, say, all the singles boxes in two. Now, if one side A plays once, then twice, then thrice… well, you have essentially a fool-proof trap: it simply cannot go on playing side A forever… eventually it must hit side B, or the game is rigged or broken or will become a black hole and implode. Of course, this is simply too big a sampling for manageability, or profit.

So, one might think good traps are simply divvying up the 120 singles boxes, say, into groups of ten. I've done this… and it's great for seeing things going on in the game, the mysteries of play and whatnot… but not so great for actual playing. One group has been out an interminably long time right now (alert, for you CA gamers who are waiting for something to drop soon!): it contains these ten boxes exactly:

268 269 278 279 289 345 346 347 348 349

Wow, this set is taking a long time to pay off! Not like other sets… but hold on a minute, notice something: half of these boxes contain a single pair out of all forty-five available pairs, that one being

34

So if the game is persistently avoiding the 34 pair, then you're 50% S.O.L. already. And then, three of the five remaining, have second pair

28

So 80% of this set of ten numbers, relies upon 4% of the total available boxes! The two remaining numbers both contain pair

29

So see the strange mystery of numbers: out of the 120 availability of boxes, these ten in theory represent: 8.3% of the singles pool. But only three pairs represents 6.7% of the available pool - almost 2% less! Which is to say, this set of ten numbers is a bit of a Chinese finger trap: you can get stuck in its illusory odds.

Because if the game's simply avoiding for now a digit, or a pair... and it so often does that, as we all know… your odds go even more out the window. So the lesson I'm taking away is… systems should be fluid, flexible, and fast on their feet!

Peer,

Everything about this game is in flux. If we knew every time 285 came out we wouldn't see it for another 1000 draws, or when the sum 17 hit it would be at least 26 draws before hitting again, life would be so easy! But if that were the case, the state wouldn't offer it, since it would a losing proposition for them.

Digits, sums, pairs, whatever you can track can be contrary. It's a fact.But if you can track it, you can trap it.

As Tia said, and I agree, double digits, as you see, from the highlighted LONG column below, stay out the longest. Not every state chart will look exactly like Texas, but double digit pairs will be at the top.

The second part of the chart is same data resorted and highlighted to show how long the pairs are CURRENTLY out. Green highlight is to show the consecutive number pairs like your 34.

Things that are evident from this is pairs stay out as much as 10 times as long as digits. No brainer. If you wait until a pair gets near the longest out position, you might not have a play for YEARS!

Two ways to get around this: 1) Look for pairs that have hit in the last two weeks to 21 days and center your play around those. (Play what's hitting as Tia said)

2) OR find the three pairs that are out the longest currently in your state and center your plays around those.

G

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

Please feel free to share your marvelous strategy of playing one combination every day for 30 years and having the gall.......

TO WONDER WHY YOU LOST.

G

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: September 27, 2014, 8:07 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by garyo1954 on September 21, 2014

Please feel free to share your marvelous strategy of playing one combination every day for 30 years and having the gall.......

TO WONDER WHY YOU LOST.

G

Apparently you are referring to one of my backtests of the PA Pick-3 game where it was revealed that using such a strategy resulted in approximately the same number of wins over 30 years, regardless of what 3 digit number was chosen. The result was a 50% loss. It puzzles me how you've concluded I wondered why this is true; I KNOW why it is true. In the meantime, you might be interested in the answer to a simple question that may be asked about any of the systems being tinkered with here, and that is, "Will Their Lotto System Work In The Simplest Case" ? You can find the answer to this question by simply inserting it into your google search box (without the quotes) and choosing the top result.

Simi Valley, CA United States Member #156940 July 4, 2014 670 Posts Offline

Posted: September 30, 2014, 10:05 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on September 27, 2014

Apparently you are referring to one of my backtests of the PA Pick-3 game where it was revealed that using such a strategy resulted in approximately the same number of wins over 30 years, regardless of what 3 digit number was chosen. The result was a 50% loss. It puzzles me how you've concluded I wondered why this is true; I KNOW why it is true. In the meantime, you might be interested in the answer to a simple question that may be asked about any of the systems being tinkered with here, and that is, "Will Their Lotto System Work In The Simplest Case" ? You can find the answer to this question by simply inserting it into your google search box (without the quotes) and choosing the top result.

I scan read that page, and I'm not smart enough to fully grasp what the point was - whether pro or con systems.

But let me say this, as the starter of this thread, and (I hope) taking off from this and the original topic....

In a purely random universe of, let's just make it easy, between 1 and 100 numbers... and given enticing enough pay-out to even bother with the below example... one should, should, be able to develop a very simple system of consistent winning... involving patience, yes, but still....

It takes into account the simple law of probability.

For example:

I pick any ten numbers between 1 and 100. Let's say, 1 to 10. But, I want to win within a few draws, obviously, to maximize my wins. Even though, let's just say, I could go a larger number of draws before breaking even, and having to bow out.

But here's the problem: given the law of probability, I can't rely on simple percentages, etc. Because it's only ten percent of the total pool. And what if this time, the time I jump in, the 1-10 subset is a long out? or god forbid, an outlier? It could go very much beyond its "percentages" of success, and bankrupt my play.

But the rules of probability state: Long-outs and outliers don't rule: they're just normal conditions in a random system of play. And in a purely random universe, things remain pretty much constant.

So... easy way to solve this problem. You just do this:

1) Wait for your set to fire off, one of those ten numbers.

2) Now play the percentage of your subset that you feel has a comfortable margin of winning.

3) If it doesn't hit in, let's say, five plays, stop. Wait for it to fire off again. And begin the process, all over again.

Because, the law of averages says, at some point, the subset will fire off within five plays of it already firing off. And this is a consistency that, over time, is reliable.

I said above "should" be able to... because at least in the CA D3, from my own studies... no matter how big the pool you make... it doesn't follow these normal, rational, consistent laws. It defies them all. (Hear that, all you out there who like to live and breathe by the Bible of stats?)

... And it doesn't work exactly because people could play this strategy, over and over, to much success. CA made its algorithm exactly to avoid this.

So one is left... with systems, and theories, and all the etc.s

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

Texas United States Member #150797 December 31, 2013 815 Posts Offline

Posted: September 30, 2014, 10:43 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by PeerGynt on September 30, 2014

I scan read that page, and I'm not smart enough to fully grasp what the point was - whether pro or con systems.

But let me say this, as the starter of this thread, and (I hope) taking off from this and the original topic....

In a purely random universe of, let's just make it easy, between 1 and 100 numbers... and given enticing enough pay-out to even bother with the below example... one should, should, be able to develop a very simple system of consistent winning... involving patience, yes, but still....

It takes into account the simple law of probability.

For example:

I pick any ten numbers between 1 and 100. Let's say, 1 to 10. But, I want to win within a few draws, obviously, to maximize my wins. Even though, let's just say, I could go a larger number of draws before breaking even, and having to bow out.

But here's the problem: given the law of probability, I can't rely on simple percentages, etc. Because it's only ten percent of the total pool. And what if this time, the time I jump in, the 1-10 subset is a long out? or god forbid, an outlier? It could go very much beyond its "percentages" of success, and bankrupt my play.

But the rules of probability state: Long-outs and outliers don't rule: they're just normal conditions in a random system of play. And in a purely random universe, things remain pretty much constant.

So... easy way to solve this problem. You just do this:

1) Wait for your set to fire off, one of those ten numbers.

2) Now play the percentage of your subset that you feel has a comfortable margin of winning.

3) If it doesn't hit in, let's say, five plays, stop. Wait for it to fire off again. And begin the process, all over again.

Because, the law of averages says, at some point, the subset will fire off within five plays of it already firing off. And this is a consistency that, over time, is reliable.

I said above "should" be able to... because at least in the CA D3, from my own studies... no matter how big the pool you make... it doesn't follow these normal, rational, consistent laws. It defies them all. (Hear that, all you out there who like to live and breathe by the Bible of stats?)

... And it doesn't work exactly because people could play this strategy, over and over, to much success. CA made its algorithm exactly to avoid this.

So one is left... with systems, and theories, and all the etc.s

"3) If it doesn't hit in, let's say, five plays, stop. Wait for it to fire off again. And begin the process, all over again."

I would substitute the median for any absolute number of plays. That will give you an expectation of hitting 50% of the time up to and including the median skip.

Or, by studying the distribution, you could come up with some smaller number of games to play your set with a win expectation associated with it.

An example might be the All Even/All Odd group -- 20 boxes out of 220, so similar to your 10% example.

26% of this group will hit immediately after another hit.

46% of hits will come within 2 games of a hit.

60% of hits will come within 3 games of a hit.

Here the median falls between 2 and 3 games out.

You can see that the returns are diminishing with every game out from the last hit. These series can run up into 20 games or more, so stopping at the median, or defining some jumping in/out point when a series is long out -- perhaps the 95th percentile for a defined number of games.

"There is no such thing as luck; only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."

Dallas, Texas United States Member #4549 May 2, 2004 1684 Posts Offline

Posted: September 30, 2014, 1:10 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by PeerGynt on September 30, 2014

I scan read that page, and I'm not smart enough to fully grasp what the point was - whether pro or con systems.

But let me say this, as the starter of this thread, and (I hope) taking off from this and the original topic....

In a purely random universe of, let's just make it easy, between 1 and 100 numbers... and given enticing enough pay-out to even bother with the below example... one should, should, be able to develop a very simple system of consistent winning... involving patience, yes, but still....

It takes into account the simple law of probability.

For example:

I pick any ten numbers between 1 and 100. Let's say, 1 to 10. But, I want to win within a few draws, obviously, to maximize my wins. Even though, let's just say, I could go a larger number of draws before breaking even, and having to bow out.

But here's the problem: given the law of probability, I can't rely on simple percentages, etc. Because it's only ten percent of the total pool. And what if this time, the time I jump in, the 1-10 subset is a long out? or god forbid, an outlier? It could go very much beyond its "percentages" of success, and bankrupt my play.

But the rules of probability state: Long-outs and outliers don't rule: they're just normal conditions in a random system of play. And in a purely random universe, things remain pretty much constant.

So... easy way to solve this problem. You just do this:

1) Wait for your set to fire off, one of those ten numbers.

2) Now play the percentage of your subset that you feel has a comfortable margin of winning.

3) If it doesn't hit in, let's say, five plays, stop. Wait for it to fire off again. And begin the process, all over again.

Because, the law of averages says, at some point, the subset will fire off within five plays of it already firing off. And this is a consistency that, over time, is reliable.

I said above "should" be able to... because at least in the CA D3, from my own studies... no matter how big the pool you make... it doesn't follow these normal, rational, consistent laws. It defies them all. (Hear that, all you out there who like to live and breathe by the Bible of stats?)

... And it doesn't work exactly because people could play this strategy, over and over, to much success. CA made its algorithm exactly to avoid this.

So one is left... with systems, and theories, and all the etc.s

Peer,

Jimmy is anti-system. For years he ranted, raved and posted gambling links to prove that we're all fools and fruitcakes. Very few, if any, click the links. There is a collective sigh, a few winks and chorus of "Heard it before."

I once ask why he wasn't standing in front of a 7-11 handing out pamphlets and holding signs. Something about it's much easier to fight the evil lottery systems on line.

G

My greatest accomplishment is teaching cats about Vienna Sausage. When I need a friend, all I need do is walk outside, pop open a can, and every little critter in the neighborhood drops by to say "Hi!"

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: September 30, 2014, 9:27 pm - IP Logged

PeerGynt,

When you say, "Now play the percentage of your subset that you feel has a comfortable margin of winning," you reveal the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Members of your subset have no more "comfortable margin of winning" than any other member of the set of 100. This flaw is at the crux of Innumeracy.

The only influence you can have on your lottery play is to increase your number of "hits" in the short term by judiciously choosing the elements of multiple line plays. Over the long term, or as a single line player, your selections will have absolutely NO influence on your overall success as a player. This is something I brought up here 4 years ago. Have you checked out the site referred to in my last post here?

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7302 Posts Offline

Posted: September 30, 2014, 11:29 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on September 30, 2014

PeerGynt,

When you say, "Now play the percentage of your subset that you feel has a comfortable margin of winning," you reveal the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Members of your subset have no more "comfortable margin of winning" than any other member of the set of 100. This flaw is at the crux of Innumeracy.

The only influence you can have on your lottery play is to increase your number of "hits" in the short term by judiciously choosing the elements of multiple line plays. Over the long term, or as a single line player, your selections will have absolutely NO influence on your overall success as a player. This is something I brought up here 4 years ago. Have you checked out the site referred to in my last post here?

--Jimmy4164

When are you finally going to grasp the simple concept of gambling?

It doesn't matter if you think Peer's logic is flawed because he'll find out when the outcome of his wager is known.

"This flaw is at the crux of Innumeracy."

This coming from someone believing 25,000 pick-3 players would buy $5 worth of QPs every drawing and continue making those bets tying to win $500 after they were out thousands.

"This is something I brought up here 4 years ago."

And for the last 4 years several people told you "we knew that". Do you think Crap players like Don Catlin, when they bet the dice will pass, do it because they "feel a comfortable margin of winning"?

New Mexico United States Member #86099 January 29, 2010 11119 Posts Offline

Posted: September 30, 2014, 11:39 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by PeerGynt on September 30, 2014

I scan read that page, and I'm not smart enough to fully grasp what the point was - whether pro or con systems.

But let me say this, as the starter of this thread, and (I hope) taking off from this and the original topic....

In a purely random universe of, let's just make it easy, between 1 and 100 numbers... and given enticing enough pay-out to even bother with the below example... one should, should, be able to develop a very simple system of consistent winning... involving patience, yes, but still....

It takes into account the simple law of probability.

For example:

I pick any ten numbers between 1 and 100. Let's say, 1 to 10. But, I want to win within a few draws, obviously, to maximize my wins. Even though, let's just say, I could go a larger number of draws before breaking even, and having to bow out.

But here's the problem: given the law of probability, I can't rely on simple percentages, etc. Because it's only ten percent of the total pool. And what if this time, the time I jump in, the 1-10 subset is a long out? or god forbid, an outlier? It could go very much beyond its "percentages" of success, and bankrupt my play.

But the rules of probability state: Long-outs and outliers don't rule: they're just normal conditions in a random system of play. And in a purely random universe, things remain pretty much constant.

So... easy way to solve this problem. You just do this:

1) Wait for your set to fire off, one of those ten numbers.

2) Now play the percentage of your subset that you feel has a comfortable margin of winning.

3) If it doesn't hit in, let's say, five plays, stop. Wait for it to fire off again. And begin the process, all over again.

Because, the law of averages says, at some point, the subset will fire off within five plays of it already firing off. And this is a consistency that, over time, is reliable.

I said above "should" be able to... because at least in the CA D3, from my own studies... no matter how big the pool you make... it doesn't follow these normal, rational, consistent laws. It defies them all. (Hear that, all you out there who like to live and breathe by the Bible of stats?)

... And it doesn't work exactly because people could play this strategy, over and over, to much success. CA made its algorithm exactly to avoid this.

So one is left... with systems, and theories, and all the etc.s

Is there no end to this endless talk about nothing? This forum has turned into babble about nothing!