Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 4, 2016, 1:02 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 9 of 18
4.17
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #155994
June 5, 2014
497 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 28, 2014, 1:09 am - IP Logged

Thank you grwurston..good looking out.

Thanks for the stats Tia...& Lakerben I'll be observing that more closely.

I may be adding Sums to my arsenal.

 Well, sums are not such a good way to go. Why? That's because they involve too many groups. It's best to stick with something having fewer groups.


    United States
    Member #155994
    June 5, 2014
    497 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 28, 2014, 2:08 am - IP Logged

    There are a lot of great examples here, but they seem to miss what differentiates (to play with the original metaphor) a Dixie cup from a golden chalice.

    Lots of these are best guesses.  Again, I can take a sampling of 10 numbers from the 120 singles boxes.  Sure, one could ride them for some plays... but they are notoriously uneven: you'll get rapid fire payoffs, then you might go long, long, LOOOOOONG stretches where your sampling won't fire... this is why the game uses an algorithm at all, to try to frustrate, well, the playahs.  And where are you at, when you jump into it, with your choice of ten?

    To strangle the metaphor, what makes a plastic cup into a golden chalice, is that it contains a smallish pool of numbers that WILL pay off within a reasonable/manageable number of plays.  They won't swing from three in a row, to 100 plays later getting a hit (which is what many standard, simple, non-thought-out dividing of the boxes produces).

    Not "might" pay off, or should pay off, or could pay off... will, pay off.

    I am convinced the game is working off its own pools.  We can never know with total assurance what those pools are, but there are ways to get close: I'm convinced.  And so I continue searching (and many have come very close).

    But the ideas put forth here are BRILLIANT!!!! The people who inhabit this board have had insights and come up with things that stagger me every time I log on here! All these insights are  extremely helpful, and I'm going to try to implement them anywhere I can. Smile

     Well, it's true that a sampling can hit hard and then have long stretches without it hitting. But, with what you're saying, how is using an algorithm supposed to be frustrating players? I'm not sure what you mean here.

     Anyway, you're absolutely right about how to turn a plastic cup into a golden chalice. You'd want a small pool of numbers that will hit within a reasonable number of plays. Btw, this is exactly what I have done. Currently, I play a small group of about 20 numbers that will ,reliably, hit in less than 5 plays regardless of what the numbers are doing at any given time. So, how is this possible? 

     As mentioned, when you play with a small set of numbers you're reducing your odds of winning. This means that you can expect to lose often and ,at times, run into long losing streaks. For example, when playing a set of 10 numbers on every draw. In this case, you need something to compensate for the lowered odds. Once again, the way to do this is in knowing ,specifically, when to play. In effect, this would require you to play in a calculated manner.


      United States
      Member #155994
      June 5, 2014
      497 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 28, 2014, 3:03 am - IP Logged

      Here is a picture of WinD's doubles trap.  WinD's double trap is you wait until a game has had 7 consecutive singles and then you play doubles for next 3 draws.

      If a double has not hit after 3 draws then you cut your losses and you stop playing.  I highlighted the box that shows what the consecutive singles count was at the time the double hit.  You can see if you were playing the window 7 thru 9 you would have been right a good number of times.

      As you can see the online player will have a target state games to play every day. 

      On 09/13/2014 you had 5 separate games have a double hit in the window 7 thru 9.

      On 09/16/2014 you had 4 separate games hit a double exactly after 7 consecutive singles.  That was money in the bank!

      Looks like WinD really is an Advantage Player!

      WinD's Doubles Trap

      Jimmy

       So, why 7 consecutive singles and ,also, why 3 draws?


        United States
        Member #155994
        June 5, 2014
        497 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 28, 2014, 3:11 am - IP Logged

        "Unfortunately, the "holy grail" of the Pick 3 is not what everyone wants ,or expects, it to be. It does not allow you to bang out $500 wins ,on the regular, playing just a few numbers. As mentioned, this is unrealistic. You can only beat the game on it's terms and not on yours. Basically, this is what it comes down to."

        Well said, Pick3Guy!  I agree that it is necessary to try to understand the flow of the game in order to predict what will happen next.

         Thank you, Tialuvslotto. You're one of the bright ones on here. Your posts are ,definitely, enlightening.


          United States
          Member #155994
          June 5, 2014
          497 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: October 28, 2014, 3:33 am - IP Logged

          Thanks, Garyo.  I now realize, with your clarification, that this and that previous chart weren't actual consultation charts themselves, but samples of tracking programs.  I gotta get into these more, my game certainly needs improving. 

          "Traps" are the same kind of thing I have in mind when I use the term "pools": a way of cornering the game, forcing it to play what it eventually must, or bust. But it's a hard game... anything that's due, is by definition "long out" - how can anyone know if something is due unless it's, for lack of a better term, "visible"?  And what's visible to us, is visible to the game: so it can drag it out, because the longer these long-outs are dragged, the more attractive they become to pursuers, and the more money such pursuers throw at it, etc.  It's a difficult thing.  But no one ever said it'd be easy. Smiley

           Well, case in point, is a story on the elusive number 53 that occurred in Italy. Many people have died after throwing their money away on this number. This is a perfect example of the gambler's fallacy in action.

            winsumloosesum's avatar - Lottery-060.jpg
            Pennsylvania
            United States
            Member #2218
            September 1, 2003
            5387 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: October 28, 2014, 4:43 am - IP Logged

            Maryland evening game at 4 consecutive doubles

            Illinois Combined draws at 5 consecutive doubles

             

            States with "6-way" consecutive draws (highest last 365 draws is 21)

            Ohio Combined draws at 16 straight draws

            Idaho Midday only draws at 10

            Florida Evening only draws at 10

            Missouri Combined draws at 10

            Puerto Rico Combined draws at 13


              United States
              Member #155994
              June 5, 2014
              497 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: October 28, 2014, 5:39 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! Smile

               Well, what you're saying should tell you something. That is, dividing the numbers into groups of ten is not so great since it produces too many sets containing too few numbers. A set of 10 numbers is ,simply, not large enough for any serious play. I've known this for a long time now.

               Btw, it's an established fact that if a random process(e.g. the Pick 3) is allowed to keep going then you're more likely to ,repeatedly, observe longer ,or extended, streaks of all outcomes. So, in your example, there's no reason why side A can't keep going for many more plays. Although, you're right that it won't go on forever. Anyway, the problem is when you continue playing side B while side A keeps coming out. But, the good news is that there is a solution to this problem.

                grwurston's avatar - Cute animals_Spider.jpg
                Winning makes me smile.
                bel air maryland
                United States
                Member #90251
                April 24, 2010
                4853 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: October 28, 2014, 6:04 pm - IP Logged

                 Well, what you're saying seems to imply that 0,1,2 are ,somehow, being favored. But, in general, this isn't true. Any 3 digits will ,more or less, occur as often as any other.

                Yes, they are. They are favored to appear as the lowest number in the set. 85 out of the 120 P3 boxed singles have 0, or 1, or 2, as the lowest number. On the same token, the 7 or 8 or 9 will appear as the highest number in the set on 85 out of the 120 single boxed draws, so in that aspect you are correct. 

                The point I was trying to make was that if you know that 0, or 1, or 2, will be the lowest number 71% of the time, why would you not use a combo containing one or two of them? You are just putting the odds in your favor.

                On the P4, it is 175 out of the 210 boxed singles, or 83%.

                "You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra, Hall of Fame baseball player.

                The numbers will tell you what numbers to play. Pay attention to the numbers.

                Don't just think outside the box, crush it.

                  CTNY's avatar - Lottery-062.jpg
                  New Haven, CT - Queens, NY
                  United States
                  Member #98740
                  October 13, 2010
                  5432 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: October 28, 2014, 6:38 pm - IP Logged

                   Well, sums are not such a good way to go. Why? That's because they involve too many groups. It's best to stick with something having fewer groups.

                  Yup..I like to keep things really simple and straightforward.

                  The goal is to approach the Pick 3 & Pick 4 game sensibly and systematically!! Wink

                   I'm not like the guy who predicted the end of the world and nothing happened.


                    United States
                    Member #155994
                    June 5, 2014
                    497 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: October 28, 2014, 8:18 pm - IP Logged

                    Predicting  the unknown with logic can be stressful

                     Yes, that's absolutely true.


                      United States
                      Member #155994
                      June 5, 2014
                      497 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: October 28, 2014, 9:28 pm - IP Logged

                      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  Wink

                       So, where does the law of averages say that ,at some point, the subset will hit within five plays of it already hitting? But, you're right that the proposed strategy doesn't really work? Why not? That's because it's more involved than that. You'd need to take the patterns into account too.


                        United States
                        Member #155994
                        June 5, 2014
                        497 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: October 28, 2014, 10:43 pm - 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.

                         Well, it depends on whether it's straight or box. So, if you're boxing consecutive digits then it's expected to ,on average, hit once in every 16 drawings. But, if it's straight then it's ,on average, once in every 100 drawings.

                         Anyway, we can't really speak about when something is due. This is the same thing as saying that we know when it's going to come out. But, it may go well passed the range of 17 to 23 drawings without hitting . In this case, we can say that the game is more ripe for consecutives.


                          United States
                          Member #155994
                          June 5, 2014
                          497 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: October 28, 2014, 11:47 pm - IP Logged

                          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 systemWink

                           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.


                            United States
                            Member #155994
                            June 5, 2014
                            497 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: October 29, 2014, 12:12 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."

                            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.

                             Well, when using this method you can expect for losing streaks to run out of control. That's because it doesn't take pattern-security into account. This is necessary to help keep losses in check.


                              United States
                              Member #155994
                              June 5, 2014
                              497 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: October 29, 2014, 12:29 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.           

                               Well, I'm sure there will always be more  "great ones" who will find their way here too. Perhaps, it's already happened Wink

                                 
                                Page 9 of 18