Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 11:30 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Why any good Pick 3 system, method, or tool will ,almost, certainly fail

Topic closed. 107 replies. Last post 2 years ago by Pick3Guy.

Page 3 of 8
4.36
PrintE-mailLink
FrankieH's avatar - cat anm.gif

United States
Member #21258
September 5, 2005
267 Posts
Offline
Posted: November 16, 2014, 2:32 am - IP Logged

Has nothing to do with WIN D. Or Frankie.

I'd feel the same if he did to his dog.

He needs to live by the rules he imposes on others.

If he is going to demand proof, he should provide proof.

It's a sad little person who runs around the board telling people their system won't work and refusing to offer any proof of such claims.

What's the point in that?

With this I'm out. I'm busy with some programming and that takes some attention to detail.

Night!

Hello Gary. :)

Thank you for standing up for me. You are man of character and you have a friend in me for life.

I agree with you 100%! :)

When that person (Pick3guy) came on my thread being rude and making demands, i took the high road. :) I won't be providing him "with both a state and time period" for him to check or anything else he rudely demanded. I don't go out of my way for rude people.

Since he seems to like to do "extensive" research, he can look it up himself.

It's better to ask for permission than to beg for forgiveness.


    United States
    Member #155994
    June 5, 2014
    497 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: November 16, 2014, 3:14 am - IP Logged

    There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail.

    What's a good system? You  may have a 'good system' and bad waging strategy, the ideal that  extended losing streaks is the reason for a system failure  is not factual. You can slice and dice it anyway, the 'elephant' in the room is RANDOMNESS, and randomness decides everything. We predict because we're not certain, there is nothing logical about predicting in random setting, your best bet is assumptions and intuition coupled with a disciplined waging strategy.

     Well, a good system is one that makes sense and that has the tendency to get winning results. Also, part of a good system is having good money management when wagering. But, now, we can add win/loss management to this too.

     Anyway, it can be said that the reason for why systems fail is because the odds are ,very much, stacked against you. This ,in turn, is the reason for why we encounter losing streaks. So, it's really more of a matter of odds rather than randomness.


      United States
      Member #155994
      June 5, 2014
      497 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: November 16, 2014, 3:38 am - IP Logged

      "There's a very fundamental reason why any good system, method, or tool will most likely fail."

      Failure is an indication that any system, method or tool is no good.

       Well, I didn't state that it will fail. But, apparently, my idea of failure is not the same as others. In my opinion, any system, method, or tool that can't handle a freak streak will prove to be a failure. On the other hand, this part doesn't seem to matter to anyone. So, a system, method, or tool is either no good or it's just not good enough.


        United States
        Member #155994
        June 5, 2014
        497 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: November 16, 2014, 4:06 am - IP Logged

        Such broad general statements don't interest anyone. We all know the problems with the game and it's odds already. So, what we need are very specific numbers. Numbers to actually prove what ever you are trying to say. Just words don't cut it. This is a numbers game. Showing is better than saying.

         Many here have shown results which are proved out with examples. Most always what they show in one form or the other use images of some kind. Specific results in math form is the best. Otherwise, anyone can come back at your very " Wordy Observations" with the classic phrase of "Uh-uh".

         Prove out your words with clear understandable statistics otherwise they don't count for much. Just another vague opinion. No numbers mean nothing to this crowd after years of hearing the same old negative "random" stuff. Breakthroughs deserve visible proofs.

         Well, here is some proof using the results for New York. As you can see, there are 9 consecutive losses(L's) with Win D's double trap. But, more proof can be seen in Win D's doubles charts. So, why don't you go check it out?

        10/15/2014 Midday 5-0-3 (L)
        10/14/2014 Evening 8-7-6 (L)
        10/14/2014 Midday 6-8-5 (L)
        10/13/2014 Evening 2-7-1
        10/13/2014 Midday 1-8-4
        10/12/2014 Evening 7-6-9
        10/12/2014 Midday 7-9-3
        10/11/2014 Evening 1-3-5
        10/11/2014 Midday 8-2-3
        10/10/2014 Evening 0-2-7
        10/10/2014 Midday 9-1-1

        10/09/2014 Midday 7-2-4 (L)
        10/08/2014 Evening 6-1-7 (L)
        10/08/2014 Midday 8-9-0 (L)
        10/07/2014 Evening 2-6-8
        10/07/2014 Midday 3-9-4
        10/06/2014 Evening 1-5-8
        10/06/2014 Midday 9-6-4
        10/05/2014 Evening 4-9-8
        10/05/2014 Midday 2-6-8
        10/04/2014 Evening 4-2-5
        10/04/2014 Midday 0-2-2

        09/22/2014 Evening 8-5-9 (L)
        09/22/2014 Midday 6-9-8 (L)
        09/21/2014 Evening 9-3-8 (L)
        09/21/2014 Midday 4-9-8
        09/20/2014 Evening 7-5-8
        09/20/2014 Midday 2-9-6
        09/19/2014 Evening 5-1-4
        09/19/2014 Midday 0-5-3
        09/18/2014 Evening 0-5-2
        09/18/2014 Midday 3-8-0
        09/17/2014 Evening 6-9-6


          United States
          Member #155994
          June 5, 2014
          497 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: November 16, 2014, 4:29 am - IP Logged

          If you have a long winning streak we all say that our system or method is successful. But when we have a losing streak we say the system failed. How can that be when we already have had success with it? Our wins have proven that the system is good.

          So perhaps the failure is ourselves, in that we are not correctly analyzing the information that we currently have. In other  words we are not making the correct observations about what  the game is doing. Or maybe we are, but we don't want to  accept or acknowledge what we are seeing. Instead of being totally objective, we are letting our own biases decide what we should play. For example, All odds have hit 5 times in the last 6 days so... I really like all evens tonight instead of all odds because I have a feeling...besides they're due.  But all odds hit again.

          Everything we do in this game is a choice. Do I play such and such or not. Whether we win or lose all depends on whether or not we made the right choices based on our observations of what the game is doing. The more choices we make, the more chances we have of being wrong. If we win great, but if we lose, we say well random got me, or the system failed. Not really, we lost because we had a feeling...(our bias) and we went against what the game is doing. Bad choice.

          Observe what the game is doing, and use what it gives you. In the above example, it's giving you all odds, so play all odds. Don't fight the game with your "feeling". That is where the long losing streaks start.

           Well, a losing streak ,in itself, wouldn't ,necessarily, make a system a failure. Losing streaks are normal and ,therefore, are to be expected. But, I was referring to those losing streaks that will just wipe you out.

           Anyway, you're right that the failure is in ourselves. We may ,for example, second guess our choices. But, what's important is that we make our choices and stick to the same way of playing.


            United States
            Member #155994
            June 5, 2014
            497 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: November 16, 2014, 4:57 am - IP Logged

            What a breath of fresh air. Your writing is lucid and to the point. 

            Double restrictions are easier to handle, you're right. As for myself, I've always tried avoiding anything to do with doubles because I felt they were the wrenches thrown into the system. But now I may rethink studying the doubles "expectation" behaviors as you so profoundly alluded to.

            My experiments on studying doubles ONLY, till this day has gotten me perplexed. In short, I was trying to apply a p-3 system to doubles only, and for the life of me, I couldn't get past a certain point. It was trying to fit a cube into a triangle.

            There are 270 straight doubles as opposed to 720 straight singles. Wouldn't it make sense to study doubles only? Sure the hits don't come everyday, but so WHAT? I'd rather play on a sure thing and have to wait, then spend money everyday just to chase the 720 combos...Green laugh

             

             

            Thanks, and I can't wait to see more. 

            Thumbs Up

             Well, thank you very much. As for myself, that's like a breath of fresh air while ,on the beach, watching the ocean waves and waiting for that rogue one to hit.

             Anyway, I share in your feeling about doubles. At times, I've considered them to be pesky. Although, it can ,or may, make sense to concentrate on doubles since they're easier to handle. So, to embrace or not to embrace? You decide.

             So, what exactly was the issue that you were having? What was going on at that point you couldn't get past? But, as a general rule, the time to start playing doubles is when they appear.


              United States
              Member #155994
              June 5, 2014
              497 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: November 16, 2014, 5:08 am - IP Logged

              What was the point? No point was ever shown to us.  He said he had a system of some kind. He said there were problems that must be solved. Yes, how. We all know that. He didn't show any of his so called improvements.

               What's refreshing about someone saying they have something they can't or will not show us? Around here secret systems no one ever gets to see are not refreshing. Same old same old.   

               Well, the answer was ,basically, given to you. As mentioned, it all comes down to placing restrictions on your play. For example, the Win D double trap ,already, has a restriction that you must wait for 7 consecutive singles. But, another restriction can be added to this to make it better. That is, only to play once ,each time around, instead of three times. In this case, you might play on the 8th draw ,each time, and then stop.


                United States
                Member #155994
                June 5, 2014
                497 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: November 16, 2014, 5:34 am - IP Logged

                Look at vTraks if you want to talk about waves. Nothing new.

                Analogies can be made of shooting stars, round vs oblong cheerios, purple fruit loops, wild hairs growing out your ear. If they were in a novel you'd say they were imagery.

                Imagery doesn't explain/prove/show or demonstrate jack.

                WHOEVER this character is, he went into Frankie's thread and told her to post numbers that he can check.

                If he is going to demand others post numbers, HE needs to MAN UP OR BE CALLED ON IT.

                Don't care if you like his analogy.

                Don't care if he is your friend.

                Don't care if he can stand on his head, whistle Dixie while juggling monkeys with his feet.

                When he demands proof, in the form of numbers he can check, he should be willing to post the same.

                And if he doesn't man up and post the numbers that prove his whatever, then he's nothing but a purple oblong cheerio.

                 So, why do you care what anyone does on Frankie's thread? Besides, some proof has been provided and you refused to acknowledge it. Again, you can look at Win D's double charts for more proof.


                  United States
                  Member #155994
                  June 5, 2014
                  497 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: November 16, 2014, 5:46 am - IP Logged

                  LMAO....

                  You should get matching clown suits if you think this clown is going to post numbers that can be checked.

                  Read the original thread where he harped about the flaw in Win D's system, but NEVER posted anything to show what, or where the flaw was, even when asked point blank by several members. 

                   Well, you're wrong about what you're saying. In the original thread, I've  posted up examples and I've ,also, made it perfectly clear about the flaw. For that matter, I've ,specifically, told you where to find one of those posts and you refused to acknowledge it. Now, here you are ,again, asking for proof. No No


                    United States
                    Member #155994
                    June 5, 2014
                    497 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: November 16, 2014, 5:55 am - IP Logged

                    Has nothing to do with WIN D. Or Frankie.

                    I'd feel the same if he did to his dog.

                    He needs to live by the rules he imposes on others.

                    If he is going to demand proof, he should provide proof.

                    It's a sad little person who runs around the board telling people their system won't work and refusing to offer any proof of such claims.

                    What's the point in that?

                    With this I'm out. I'm busy with some programming and that takes some attention to detail.

                    Night!

                     Well, you don't care about proof since we've been through this already. What's the point in asking for proof if you don't acknowledge anything?


                      United States
                      Member #155994
                      June 5, 2014
                      497 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: November 16, 2014, 6:09 am - IP Logged

                      Hello Gary. :)

                      Thank you for standing up for me. You are man of character and you have a friend in me for life.

                      I agree with you 100%! :)

                      When that person (Pick3guy) came on my thread being rude and making demands, i took the high road. :) I won't be providing him "with both a state and time period" for him to check or anything else he rudely demanded. I don't go out of my way for rude people.

                      Since he seems to like to do "extensive" research, he can look it up himself.

                       Well, that's interesting. Did you really take offense to me asking you to post up? But, there was nothing rude about it. Btw, your method failed miserably in New York. How do you explain this? Is that too rude for you?

                        FrankieH's avatar - cat anm.gif

                        United States
                        Member #21258
                        September 5, 2005
                        267 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: November 16, 2014, 11:43 am - IP Logged

                         Well, that's interesting. Did you really take offense to me asking you to post up? But, there was nothing rude about it. Btw, your method failed miserably in New York. How do you explain this? Is that too rude for you?

                        P3G,

                        I'm glad you find it interesting. How interesting that you find it interesting. :)

                        It's all in your delivery sweetheart. You have no manners. You're also arrogant. 

                        But that's your problem, isn't it?

                        I would critique your system, but alas, I wasn't interested enough to look. :)

                        My system failed "miserably" in New York? So? What's your point? Oops, now I'm being rude. tisk tisk

                        Do have a seat. :)

                        That is all.

                        Tootles.  :)

                        It's better to ask for permission than to beg for forgiveness.

                          garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                          Dallas, Texas
                          United States
                          Member #4549
                          May 2, 2004
                          1679 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: November 16, 2014, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

                           Well, that's interesting. Did you really take offense to me asking you to post up? But, there was nothing rude about it. Btw, your method failed miserably in New York. How do you explain this? Is that too rude for you?

                          Good morning! Glad to see you posted your EXTENSIVE research. Quite EXTENSIVE, EXHAUSTIVE, A REAL BRAIN DRAIN THAT. 5 minutes of your life you'll never get back. 

                          In the "Holy Grail" thread we took the idea back 4988 (January, 2008) draws of the NY Numbers. I remember posting this summation....

                          See the column that says Set? That is the Set that is hitting. See the column Arow? That is how many times in a row that set is hitting. See the column #Times? That is how many times this Set has hit in a row.

                          So Singles hit 7 in a row 218 times. This means no doubles hit during that 7 draw period. Every column can be read the same EXACT way.

                          Quick subtraction tells us 40 doubles come out at the 8th draw (218 - 168), 39 come out at the 9th draw (168 - 129), 24 come out at the 10th draw (129-105), and 28 come out at the 11th draw (105 -77). 

                          This means a total of 141 doubles hit between draws 8 and 11.OR 64% of the doubles that stay out 7 draws will hit by the 11th draw.

                          I would be in error to compare these 141 draws vs your EXTENSIVE RESEARCH REVEALING 9. There are actually 141 where the doubles trap did work vs 77 where it did not for that given period. 

                          Any idea WHY YOUR EXTENSIVE RESEARCH NOT REVEAL THOSE?  My 77 compared to your 9 is a considerable difference.

                          Using your EXTENSIVE RESEARCH we have 12 to 1 odds (141 to 9) of the doubles trap working. Using real data we only have 2 to 1 (141 to 77) that it will work.

                          If this doesn't answer your question you need to redefine and clarify your point since what you are saying (over and over and ad nauseum) is not going to change the real data.

                          Must get a LAVA LAMP!

                          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!"

                            Avatar
                            South Carolina
                            United States
                            Member #18322
                            July 9, 2005
                            1704 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: November 16, 2014, 4:06 pm - IP Logged

                            What a breath of fresh air. Your writing is lucid and to the point. 

                            Double restrictions are easier to handle, you're right. As for myself, I've always tried avoiding anything to do with doubles because I felt they were the wrenches thrown into the system. But now I may rethink studying the doubles "expectation" behaviors as you so profoundly alluded to.

                            My experiments on studying doubles ONLY, till this day has gotten me perplexed. In short, I was trying to apply a p-3 system to doubles only, and for the life of me, I couldn't get past a certain point. It was trying to fit a cube into a triangle.

                            There are 270 straight doubles as opposed to 720 straight singles. Wouldn't it make sense to study doubles only? Sure the hits don't come everyday, but so WHAT? I'd rather play on a sure thing and have to wait, then spend money everyday just to chase the 720 combos...Green laugh

                             

                             

                            Thanks, and I can't wait to see more. 

                            Thumbs Up

                            DOUBLES !!!  YEAH !!!  PRAY TO THE LOTTERY GODS, and FACE YOUR FEARS !!! I PREFER and LOVE playing DOUBLES, b/c the payout is Higher, and there are only 3 Combos to cover in Pick 3.

                            This being the case, it is probably a Good Idea to invest more effort in figuring out Strategies for Doubles, in both Pick 3 and Pick 4.

                              Avatar
                              backwoods ga
                              United States
                              Member #155844
                              May 31, 2014
                              1886 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: November 16, 2014, 4:24 pm - IP Logged

                              DOUBLES !!!  YEAH !!!  PRAY TO THE LOTTERY GODS, and FACE YOUR FEARS !!! I PREFER and LOVE playing DOUBLES, b/c the payout is Higher, and there are only 3 Combos to cover in Pick 3.

                              This being the case, it is probably a Good Idea to invest more effort in figuring out Strategies for Doubles, in both Pick 3 and Pick 4.

                              I agree

                              Destintcreation lets get to the money. This day forward..

                                         CASH4ninja

                               

                              Holla