- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 12:35 pm
You last visited
April 16, 2024, 9:36 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
So what would the "Holy Grail" of Pick 3 playing be?Prev TopicNext Topic
-
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!
-
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
I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain. -
-
I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain. -
-
Duly noted about the stress part.
But...
Gambling on anything in the World .....in any way..... can be stressful .........but lots of FUN at the same time!
The only real failure .....is the failure to try.
Luck is a very rare thing....... Odds not so much.
Odds never change .....but probability does.
Win d
-
Procrastination Stops Progress ⇒Σ
-
-
-
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
-
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
"There is no such thing as luck; only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
~Robert A. Heinlein
-
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
I'm probably here unless I'm not.
Dreaming would be a perfectly useless function if it's only purpose was to entertain. -
-
-
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!
I'm sitting here listening to Merle Haggard sipping some coffee!
