Welcome Guest
You last visited April 19, 2018, 11:27 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 3 years ago by Atomic Dog.

 Page 7 of 18
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7685 Posts
Offline
 Posted: September 30, 2014, 11:44 pm - IP Logged

"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.

Several years ago I read about a simple pick-3 system based on when consecutive numbers (123, 879, etc.) are due to be drawn. I believe it was between 17 and 23 drawings.

Might be worthwhile tracking them and playing for 4 or 5 drawings when due.

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
746 Posts
Online
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 12:12 am - 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?

--Jimmy4164

Again, being slow I guess, I never fully know if I'm grasping what people here are saying.  So forgive me if I don't adequately answer you, Jimmy.

But I think I distinctly said - working against the CA D3's algorithm, a set of (say) ten plays has (imho) less certainty of winning using anything like strategy as accorded to a perfectly random selection of play.

If one could figure out the algorithm in CA, I think one would approach an even more perfectly streamlined "random" system than pure randomness.  Imho, of course.  Because I believe CA has tinkered with the algorithmic formula to frustrate "system" players who work purely in and against (what they think is) a random universe; but also AND keeping things always evenly consistent in the long run/on a constant basis.  Because, a purely random universe will have long series that will defy logic at times, and that will seem like something utterly unfair and manipulated, especially the more and more it plays (an endless amount contains all possibilities); not to mention purely random universes aren't too hard to develop winning systems against.

But the flaw in the system is this: to both frustrate the players, AND, the vital and, to keep things evenly consistent... and I believe what you will discover, at the dark heart of the algorithm... is a MORE orderly-run "random" universe, than any real random universe would actually be like.  The unexpected side-effect of tinkering with science, as Dr. Frankenstein discovered to his woe.

Discover that... and many players here, I believe, in their own way, through their own systems; be it short sums and predicting future return-sets and this's and thats's, have indeed discovered just that...

But discover that, and you'll deftly manage to, for lack of a better term - but why look for better? Discover that, and you'll manage to beat the system

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

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
746 Posts
Online
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 12:23 am - IP Logged

"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.

Curious if this tests out under analysis, Tia - does it?  But then, the smaller you shrink that pool, I'm guessing it's not proportional: the more those odds wildly vary.

One should be able to test these kinds of theories easier with, say, pairs: there's only forty-five pairs in the game.  Each play has three distinct pairs.  So... er... that makes... math expert, step forward, save me here....

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

Simi Valley, CA
United States
Member #156940
July 4, 2014
746 Posts
Online
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 12:27 am - IP Logged

Several years ago I read about a simple pick-3 system based on when consecutive numbers (123, 879, etc.) are due to be drawn. I believe it was between 17 and 23 drawings.

Might be worthwhile tracking them and playing for 4 or 5 drawings when due.

012 123 234 345 456 567 678 789 890 = nine sets, or just about 8% of the singles pool.  Seems kinda right to me, then.

(Btw: I personally separate the singles plays from the doubles entirely, and work my own stats on that basis - when figuring singles, I don't include doubles in steps, and vice-versa.  I actually think the game kind of works off that system anyway; and, you'll find, numbers too come closer to "purely random" universe figures than otherwise.)

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

Stone Mountain*Georgia
United States
Member #828
November 2, 2002
10491 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 12:54 am - IP Logged

012 123 234 345 456 567 678 789 890 ..and don't forget 901  makes 10

All these 10 number groups ....all in ,out, odd, even,high,low......and 10 consecutive straights each one hits at the expected math average rate of every  16.67  draws.

Each one of the 10 number groups will average a hit 22 times a year.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 2:25 am - 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?

--Jimmy4164

Stack47, when referring to me, said,

"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 a classic example of the obfuscation practiced by the cabal here who don't want you to know the truth about gambling in the lottery.  He either doesn't understand the purpose of writing a computer simulation to show what would happen IF 25,000 Pick-3 players would buy \$5 blah blah blah, OR, he does understand, but doesn't want you to share that understanding.  I suspect it's the latter, but it's difficult to know for sure.  Put "Will Their Lotto System Work In The Simplest Case" into your Google search box and choose the top result.

--Jimmy4164

Texas
United States
Member #150797
December 31, 2013
824 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 6:40 am - IP Logged

Curious if this tests out under analysis, Tia - does it?  But then, the smaller you shrink that pool, I'm guessing it's not proportional: the more those odds wildly vary.

One should be able to test these kinds of theories easier with, say, pairs: there's only forty-five pairs in the game.  Each play has three distinct pairs.  So... er... that makes... math expert, step forward, save me here....

"Curious if this tests out under analysis, Tia - does it?  But then, the smaller you shrink that pool, I'm guessing it's not proportional: the more those odds wildly vary."

These are empirical, not theoretical percentages, so the numbers I list are the average of my playing experiences over the last few years.  I think you would find, if you kept records, that you should capture 60% of the hits in the ALL Even/Odd series by playing the next 3 games after a hit.  I'm not saying that there wouldn't be 5 times in a row that there were no hits within 3 games, 'cause the game likes to mess with ya, but over time you should capture 60% of the hits.

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

~Robert A. Heinlein

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7685 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 5:30 pm - IP Logged

012 123 234 345 456 567 678 789 890 = nine sets, or just about 8% of the singles pool.  Seems kinda right to me, then.

(Btw: I personally separate the singles plays from the doubles entirely, and work my own stats on that basis - when figuring singles, I don't include doubles in steps, and vice-versa.  I actually think the game kind of works off that system anyway; and, you'll find, numbers too come closer to "purely random" universe figures than otherwise.)

By adding "111" to all of the 120 box numbers, you can create 12 unique groups of ten numbers. Add "111" to the 90 box numbers and get 9 unique groups of ten and the triples group make it 22 groups. I've never spent the time tracking them, but I did play two of the groups in each pick-3 state/jurisdiction for a month last year and had at least one hit in everyone.

Some of the groups will hit more than average, less hits or average hits, but there should be some consistent enough for play.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7685 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 5:57 pm - IP Logged

Stack47, when referring to me, said,

"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 a classic example of the obfuscation practiced by the cabal here who don't want you to know the truth about gambling in the lottery.  He either doesn't understand the purpose of writing a computer simulation to show what would happen IF 25,000 Pick-3 players would buy \$5 blah blah blah, OR, he does understand, but doesn't want you to share that understanding.  I suspect it's the latter, but it's difficult to know for sure.  Put "Will Their Lotto System Work In The Simplest Case" into your Google search box and choose the top result.

--Jimmy4164

I don't understand why someone intelligent enough to write a computer simulation would think there was any useful purpose for your 25,000 player nonsense because it simulates nothing. But then again you probably would bet \$5 to win \$500 after losing the \$1825 the first year.

"According to the occcultist ramblings of Howard and Silver 1 2 3 4 5 6 is less likely to occur than the other 6 possibilities in a random selection."

I should have known better than to google something you suggested. Colin's message board doesn't get very much action. Why don't you google "gail howard's 123456 theory".

Stone Mountain*Georgia
United States
Member #828
November 2, 2002
10491 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 6:57 pm - IP Logged

I don't understand why someone intelligent enough to write a computer simulation would think there was any useful purpose for your 25,000 player nonsense because it simulates nothing. But then again you probably would bet \$5 to win \$500 after losing the \$1825 the first year.

"According to the occcultist ramblings of Howard and Silver 1 2 3 4 5 6 is less likely to occur than the other 6 possibilities in a random selection."

I should have known better than to google something you suggested. Colin's message board doesn't get very much action. Why don't you google "gail howard's 123456 theory".

Colin Faircloth was a member here years ago. Very funny,.... in an English sort of way.  But...he was very strict about foolish players and their superstitions and zapped plenty hard. He didn't quite understand the "towns people/monster" dynamic ratio.  LOL

He was so smart he missed the points in a lot of the smaller games. I was able to get him to come over to the dark side for a few hunting/trapping trips. He plays much differently than he writes. Sort of a bold playing style.....if you know what I mean. He was a big opportunist trapper as well. So, that was fun.

Ahh, the old days when everything was new. Some very talented folks use to drop by back then.  Strong willed and just full of beans and brains too they were. LOL  Many were banded or run off or became distracted. Colin was exiled back to his homeland in Australia.

He wrote beautifully. So many of the great ones have gone on.....or ask to leave.

He had a lot of connections in the industry and his ear to the ground. It was great to know what was going on behind the front line stories. Very Juicy things can get you in trouble as well !  LOL

It seemed to me he reverted back to his Big Games pretty quickly which was a big loss to us. Seemed he never really understood the real value the smaller games could bring to his table.

Think old Colin might be on"walk-about" and his site looks a little"down under" too. Don't think his daughter was keen on keeping on with it.

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

UNC
United States
Member #106260
February 15, 2011
27149 Posts
Online
 Posted: October 1, 2014, 7:13 pm - IP Logged

I post the Guaranteed pool every week. Check my thread!

EZ\$\$\$

Work smarter not harder!!

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 2, 2014, 3:40 am - IP Logged

Colin Faircloth was a member here years ago. Very funny,.... in an English sort of way.  But...he was very strict about foolish players and their superstitions and zapped plenty hard. He didn't quite understand the "towns people/monster" dynamic ratio.  LOL

He was so smart he missed the points in a lot of the smaller games. I was able to get him to come over to the dark side for a few hunting/trapping trips. He plays much differently than he writes. Sort of a bold playing style.....if you know what I mean. He was a big opportunist trapper as well. So, that was fun.

Ahh, the old days when everything was new. Some very talented folks use to drop by back then.  Strong willed and just full of beans and brains too they were. LOL  Many were banded or run off or became distracted. Colin was exiled back to his homeland in Australia.

He wrote beautifully. So many of the great ones have gone on.....or ask to leave.

He had a lot of connections in the industry and his ear to the ground. It was great to know what was going on behind the front line stories. Very Juicy things can get you in trouble as well !  LOL

It seemed to me he reverted back to his Big Games pretty quickly which was a big loss to us. Seemed he never really understood the real value the smaller games could bring to his table.

Think old Colin might be on"walk-about" and his site looks a little"down under" too. Don't think his daughter was keen on keeping on with it.

Your more or less positive appraisal of C. (cloth?) (how about brother) was unexpected.  Unfortunately, you failed to point out that his main site totally debunks Howard and Silver's self serving garbage as well as every attempt at a "system" that has ever appeared here.  His complete fleshing out of a Pick-6 Pool-7 Lotto game explains it all.  It's also unfortunate that your belief that the "smaller" games are somehow less affected by probability than the "bigger" games  and therefore beatable, places you right in Stack47's camp.

After reading C's extensive coverage of these issues in more than fifty articles, do you really think there is anything else he could say about it?  Stack47 apparently thinks that the lack of activity at the site proves he (and 99% of the mathematicians in the world) are wrong.  Mathematically, the lottery is trivial.  People tend to gravitate to sites that tell them what they want to hear.  Innumerates don't want to be shown why lottery systems are a waste of time, so they spend their time at sites like LP.

There is actually an intersection of his work on coverage and wheeling which would be useful to those here who wish to distribute their winnings over more numerous, smaller "hits."  Strangely, you didn't mention that either.  Maybe it's because he also proves these methods won't help you win a jackpot.

C's assesment of many of the posters here is poignant:
"My first introduction to the people that frequent Lotto forums was back in 2003 when I discovered some were actually giving a few numbers for the next draw in a 6/49 Lotto game. ie from some 14 million possibilities they had narrowed it down to a handful. Needless to say I regarded them as fruitcakes but thankfully they are not taken as seriously by the lesser fruitcakes these days. Some sadly live in a time warp where any crap that piles on their dung heap of ignorance is warmly received and enlightened information which shows it up is ignored. Yes, according to them the Sun still revolves around the Earth.

"Generally, Forums on the Web are a mixed bunch and if allowed are usually taken over by a bunch of nincompoops which dissuades any possible serious contributor from participating."

New Mexico
United States
Member #86099
January 29, 2010
12628 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 2, 2014, 10:11 am - IP Logged

Your more or less positive appraisal of C. (cloth?) (how about brother) was unexpected.  Unfortunately, you failed to point out that his main site totally debunks Howard and Silver's self serving garbage as well as every attempt at a "system" that has ever appeared here.  His complete fleshing out of a Pick-6 Pool-7 Lotto game explains it all.  It's also unfortunate that your belief that the "smaller" games are somehow less affected by probability than the "bigger" games  and therefore beatable, places you right in Stack47's camp.

After reading C's extensive coverage of these issues in more than fifty articles, do you really think there is anything else he could say about it?  Stack47 apparently thinks that the lack of activity at the site proves he (and 99% of the mathematicians in the world) are wrong.  Mathematically, the lottery is trivial.  People tend to gravitate to sites that tell them what they want to hear.  Innumerates don't want to be shown why lottery systems are a waste of time, so they spend their time at sites like LP.

There is actually an intersection of his work on coverage and wheeling which would be useful to those here who wish to distribute their winnings over more numerous, smaller "hits."  Strangely, you didn't mention that either.  Maybe it's because he also proves these methods won't help you win a jackpot.

C's assesment of many of the posters here is poignant:
"My first introduction to the people that frequent Lotto forums was back in 2003 when I discovered some were actually giving a few numbers for the next draw in a 6/49 Lotto game. ie from some 14 million possibilities they had narrowed it down to a handful. Needless to say I regarded them as fruitcakes but thankfully they are not taken as seriously by the lesser fruitcakes these days. Some sadly live in a time warp where any crap that piles on their dung heap of ignorance is warmly received and enlightened information which shows it up is ignored. Yes, according to them the Sun still revolves around the Earth.

"Generally, Forums on the Web are a mixed bunch and if allowed are usually taken over by a bunch of nincompoops which dissuades any possible serious contributor from participating."

The sound of silence.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7685 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 2, 2014, 1:02 pm - IP Logged

Colin Faircloth was a member here years ago. Very funny,.... in an English sort of way.  But...he was very strict about foolish players and their superstitions and zapped plenty hard. He didn't quite understand the "towns people/monster" dynamic ratio.  LOL

He was so smart he missed the points in a lot of the smaller games. I was able to get him to come over to the dark side for a few hunting/trapping trips. He plays much differently than he writes. Sort of a bold playing style.....if you know what I mean. He was a big opportunist trapper as well. So, that was fun.

Ahh, the old days when everything was new. Some very talented folks use to drop by back then.  Strong willed and just full of beans and brains too they were. LOL  Many were banded or run off or became distracted. Colin was exiled back to his homeland in Australia.

He wrote beautifully. So many of the great ones have gone on.....or ask to leave.

He had a lot of connections in the industry and his ear to the ground. It was great to know what was going on behind the front line stories. Very Juicy things can get you in trouble as well !  LOL

It seemed to me he reverted back to his Big Games pretty quickly which was a big loss to us. Seemed he never really understood the real value the smaller games could bring to his table.

Think old Colin might be on"walk-about" and his site looks a little"down under" too. Don't think his daughter was keen on keeping on with it.

Looks like your every-day-garden-size-variety-self-proclaimed lottery expert to me.

"Ahh, the old days when everything was new. Some very talented folks use to drop by back then.  Strong willed and just full of beans and brains too they were. LOL"

I've read lots of lottery related articles on the Net and never saw anything resembling a "Holy Grail" of pick-3 systems, but I never expected to find it either. However if there is such a thing, I'll never find it reading articles about the evils of gambling by someone like our local con-man who believes there are more than two people on LP giving him any credibility.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the probabilities and the huge odds against, but to make their case they usually have to ignore other probabilities and statistics that are deciding factors in making the bet. At the end of the day, it comes down to the concept of making simple choice on what to bet and how much to bet on it; something the people on the dark side can't comprehend.

COLUMBUS,GA.
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
6313 Posts
Offline
 Posted: October 2, 2014, 2:36 pm - IP Logged

I think these 88 boxes are the closest you can get to the "Holy Grail". Put them into 4 groups

Mostly High

056 057 058 059 067 068 069 078 079 089 156 157 158 167 168 169 178 179 189 256 257 259 267 268 269 278 279 289 356 358 359 367 368 378 379 389 457 458 459 467 469 478 479 489

Mostly Low

015 016 017 018 019 025 026 027 028 029 035 037 038 039 045 046 047 049 125 126 127 128 129 136 137 138 139 145 146 148 149 235 236 237 238 239 245 247 248 249 346 347 348 349

Mostly Odd

013 015 017 019 035 037 039 057 059 079 125 127 129 134 136 138 145 149 156 158 167 169 178 189 235 237 239 257 259 279 347 349 356 358 367 378 389 457 459 479 569 578 589 679

Mostly Even

014 016 018 023 025 027 029 034 038 045 047 049 056 058 067 069 078 089 124 126 128 146 148 168 236 238 245 247 249 256 267 269 278 289 346 348 368 458 467 469 478 489 568 689

 Page 7 of 18