Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 20, 2017, 5:30 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Would you stop playing the lottery if you were restricted to Quick Picks?

Topic closed. 103 replies. Last post 1 year ago by rundown99.

Page 3 of 7
4.712
PrintE-mailLink

Would you stop playing the lottery if you were restricted to Quick Picks?

Yes [ 37 ]  [47.44%]
No [ 41 ]  [52.56%]
Total Valid Votes [ 78 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 4 ]  
Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10391 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 15, 2015, 12:58 am - IP Logged

"That tells me they know what they're doing and don't consider any 'system' an obstacle."

Lep

Massachusetts didn't consider the scheme(system) the Michigan couple was using to play their WinFall game an obstacle until it got coverage in the local news.  Facts are states make their money off sales so even a successful system(scheme) is of little concern but if the public think that some players have an advantage that most don't then they won't play and that is an obstacle.

RJOh,

I found an article online about the Michigan couple, the corporation, and how they basically bogarted the terminals.

Do you seriously consider team play and locking up a terminal a 'system'.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

Lep

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

    maximumfun's avatar - Lottery-030.jpg
    Lavender Rocket

    United States
    Member #124616
    March 16, 2012
    2642 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 15, 2015, 3:38 am - IP Logged

    I would not play if quick picks were my only option.  The work groups I play in are a function of whom ever is purchasing the tickets - so I don't have a say in how they are selected, but my 4 tickets each week (1 powerball each draw and 1 megamillions each draw) are self pick from a pool of 21 numbers that we (family) rotate between.

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19900 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: July 15, 2015, 12:39 pm - IP Logged

      RJOh,

      I found an article online about the Michigan couple, the corporation, and how they basically bogarted the terminals.

      Do you seriously consider team play and locking up a terminal a 'system'.

      "I found an article online about the Michigan couple, the corporation, and how they basically bogarted the terminals."

      LP had several articles about them too.

      I thought of what they did more as a scheme than a system.  They saw an opportunity and had the finances to take advantage of it.  Massachusetts created that roll down scheme to generate sales and was happy to accept their money until the news coverage make it seem like their finances gave them an unfair advantage. 

      The idea of a lottery system or scheme is to give a player an advantage over other players and most lotteries try to eliminate such opportunities by increasing matrix sizes and limiting the amount of time one player can tied up a terminal.  Occasionally such opportunities come up such as this one and another one in Tennessee a few years ago when the newly installed RNG for pick3/4 games didn't generate any doubles of triples for three weeks.

      Players continue to look for bias in the ways winning combinations are picked and when they think they've found one they have what they call a system.

       * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
         
                   Evil Looking       

        Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
        Zeta Reticuli Star System
        United States
        Member #30470
        January 17, 2006
        10391 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 15, 2015, 8:11 pm - IP Logged

        It's for that very reason that Nevada outlawed team play on Mega Millions slot machines.

        Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

        Lep

        There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7344 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 15, 2015, 8:30 pm - IP Logged

          Stack,

          So what is that to you if I did bring it up?

          ////

          Never forget 'your numbers' in any given draw may very well be someone else's quick pick!

          Scared

          "So what is that to you if I did bring it up?"

          Because you still haven't figured out it's satire, not even a statistic, and you keep quoting it like it's mathematical fact. And the topic asks if the game is "restricted to Quick Picks" as in 100% (ALL) ticket sales are QPs.

          "Never forget 'your numbers' in any given draw may very well be someone else's quick pick!"

          Speaking of real statistics, there are 169,442,196 MM combinations that match none of "your numbers" including the bonus number.

            Avatar
            Kentucky
            United States
            Member #32652
            February 14, 2006
            7344 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: July 15, 2015, 9:16 pm - IP Logged

            "I found an article online about the Michigan couple, the corporation, and how they basically bogarted the terminals."

            LP had several articles about them too.

            I thought of what they did more as a scheme than a system.  They saw an opportunity and had the finances to take advantage of it.  Massachusetts created that roll down scheme to generate sales and was happy to accept their money until the news coverage make it seem like their finances gave them an unfair advantage. 

            The idea of a lottery system or scheme is to give a player an advantage over other players and most lotteries try to eliminate such opportunities by increasing matrix sizes and limiting the amount of time one player can tied up a terminal.  Occasionally such opportunities come up such as this one and another one in Tennessee a few years ago when the newly installed RNG for pick3/4 games didn't generate any doubles of triples for three weeks.

            Players continue to look for bias in the ways winning combinations are picked and when they think they've found one they have what they call a system.

            The best mathematical edge was when that Australian syndicate tried to buy all the possible combos on the Virginia Lotto. And they did buy enough tickets to have the winning ticket.

            "Players continue to look for bias in the ways winning combinations are picked and when they think they've found one they have what they call a system."

            A bias doesn't necessarily mean trends in the drawings; the Michigan couple found a bias when there was a rollover and the Aussie group's bias was waiting for the jackpot to reach a certain level and finding enough stores to print all their play slips. The problem with buying all the Virginia Lotto combos is the $7.1 million cost of play.

              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
              mid-Ohio
              United States
              Member #9
              March 24, 2001
              19900 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: July 15, 2015, 9:58 pm - IP Logged

              The best mathematical edge was when that Australian syndicate tried to buy all the possible combos on the Virginia Lotto. And they did buy enough tickets to have the winning ticket.

              "Players continue to look for bias in the ways winning combinations are picked and when they think they've found one they have what they call a system."

              A bias doesn't necessarily mean trends in the drawings; the Michigan couple found a bias when there was a rollover and the Aussie group's bias was waiting for the jackpot to reach a certain level and finding enough stores to print all their play slips. The problem with buying all the Virginia Lotto combos is the $7.1 million cost of play.

              "the Michigan couple found a bias when there was a rollover and the Aussie group's bias was waiting for the jackpot to reach a certain level and finding enough stores to print all their play slips."

              According an article I read the Massachusetts Inspector General said the condition with the WindFall game was known long before the Michigan couple got into the act, a group of MIT students had made as much as $8M taking advantage of that flaw going back to 2004 but the lottery commissioners did nothing because they were making plenty of money because of it.  I found that hard to believe since the roll down only happened 3-4 times yearly and the students using that scheme only brought a hundred thousands tickets each time and made a 10-15% profit.

              As far as that Aussie group, I'm surprised that didn't happened more often.  I remember when Ohio had its Super Lotto Game(6/49+1) and it generated jackpots of $60M+ quite often and was played by lots of out of staters.  There were big winners from all the neighbor states, so many in fact they put a cap of $20M that one ticket could win which killed the game.  A $60M jackpot wasn't as attractive when all a player could win was $20M.

               * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                 
                           Evil Looking       

                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3502 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: July 16, 2015, 3:19 pm - IP Logged

                "That tells me they know what they're doing and don't consider any 'system' an obstacle."

                Lep

                Massachusetts didn't consider the scheme(system) the Michigan couple was using to play their WinFall game an obstacle until it got coverage in the local news.  Facts are states make their money off sales so even a successful system(scheme) is of little concern but if the public think that some players have an advantage that most don't then they won't play and that is an obstacle.

                You seem to be missing the point. If a system actually worked the lottery would pay out more than probability suggests, and they would therefore pay out more than they budgeted for. Since systems don't work the lottery safely relies on the consistent profits guaranteed by probability instead of worrying about a system presenting an obstacle.

                The Masachusetts game never offered anybody a better chance of winning. It just moved money from the jackpot prize pool to the lesser prizes. That allowed those who won the smaller prizes to collect money from the jackpot prixe pool as well as the usual amount for the smaller prize, but it didn't increase the amount MA had to pay out. If MA hadn't canceled the game they'd still be making money on it. The problem to the MA lottery was the public's perception that the average player was at a disadvantage compared to those who could afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.

                In that respect it's no different than the syndicate playing the VA lottery. The VA lottery paid out exactly what they would have paid out under any other circumstances: the sales percentage that had already been allocated to the jackpot. If a regular player had also played the winning numbers they would have gotten a smaller prize because of sharing with the syndicate. Systems don't hurt anybody except for the schmucks that pay for them. The MA and VA schemes hurt the regular players who (potentially) got smaller prizes. The lottery may worry about bad publicity reducing sales (and therefore profit), but they don't worry about losing profit to systems or schemes.

                  JADELottery's avatar - YingYangYong 01.PNG
                  The Quantum Master
                  West Concord, MN
                  United States
                  Member #21
                  December 7, 2001
                  3684 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: July 17, 2015, 1:20 am - IP Logged

                  Lurking

                  Cool

                  Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
                  Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
                  Use at your own risk.

                  Order is a Subset of Chaos
                  Knowledge is Beyond Belief
                  Wisdom is Not Censored
                  Douglas Paul Smallish
                  Jehocifer

                    JADELottery's avatar - YingYangYong 01.PNG
                    The Quantum Master
                    West Concord, MN
                    United States
                    Member #21
                    December 7, 2001
                    3684 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: July 17, 2015, 11:08 am - IP Logged

                    Interesting reading.

                    Here's another view.

                    Choosing to buy Quick Picks is a system itself and proves that systems do work.

                    Yep, knot jerk your noodle, aye.

                    Presented 'AS IS' and for Entertainment Purposes Only.
                    Any gain or loss is your responsibility.
                    Use at your own risk.

                    Order is a Subset of Chaos
                    Knowledge is Beyond Belief
                    Wisdom is Not Censored
                    Douglas Paul Smallish
                    Jehocifer

                      cbr$'s avatar - maren
                      Cordova,Al.
                      United States
                      Member #104482
                      January 15, 2011
                      5411 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: July 17, 2015, 2:02 pm - IP Logged

                      Yes, I would stop playing the lottery if Quick picks , was the only option to playing the games.

                        Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                        Zeta Reticuli Star System
                        United States
                        Member #30470
                        January 17, 2006
                        10391 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: July 17, 2015, 11:17 pm - IP Logged

                        To everyone who has said they wouldn't play if the lottery was only quick picks, do you buy raffle tickets?

                        Green laugh

                        Two different things you say? Let's say a winning raffle ticket is:

                        215347223

                        And let's say a lottery drawing is:

                        1   12   20   21   24   35

                        but let's write that as:

                        11220212435

                        Scared

                        Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                        Lep

                        There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7344 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: July 18, 2015, 1:40 am - IP Logged

                          "the Michigan couple found a bias when there was a rollover and the Aussie group's bias was waiting for the jackpot to reach a certain level and finding enough stores to print all their play slips."

                          According an article I read the Massachusetts Inspector General said the condition with the WindFall game was known long before the Michigan couple got into the act, a group of MIT students had made as much as $8M taking advantage of that flaw going back to 2004 but the lottery commissioners did nothing because they were making plenty of money because of it.  I found that hard to believe since the roll down only happened 3-4 times yearly and the students using that scheme only brought a hundred thousands tickets each time and made a 10-15% profit.

                          As far as that Aussie group, I'm surprised that didn't happened more often.  I remember when Ohio had its Super Lotto Game(6/49+1) and it generated jackpots of $60M+ quite often and was played by lots of out of staters.  There were big winners from all the neighbor states, so many in fact they put a cap of $20M that one ticket could win which killed the game.  A $60M jackpot wasn't as attractive when all a player could win was $20M.

                          "As far as that Aussie group, I'm surprised that didn't happened more often."

                          BobP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I saw lotto syndicate ads in Lotto World magazine. Robert Serotic was involved in syndicates and won 8 or 9 jackpots. They were similar to office pools with the exception the shares cost much more.

                          In the 80s multi winners were common in Ohio lotto and possibly because of syndicate play.

                            Avatar
                            Krypton
                            United States
                            Member #140102
                            March 11, 2013
                            904 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: July 18, 2015, 6:09 am - IP Logged

                            It depends on what type of lottery you're playing. Jackpot type of games, are usually won by Quick Picks.  But, Pick 3/4 games are usually won, playing your own numbers.  You would lose even more money than you currently lose, playing Quick Picks in Pick 3/4. 

                            Pick 5 games  ???  Maybe it's 50/50 or 60/40 QP Aren't most Pick 5 games won by playing your own numbers [Wheeled]  ??

                            I always try to wrap my brain around this. IMHO the only reason there is a high % is because more folks buy a QP vs figuring out there own numbers   If you have 100 people and 98 buy QPs and only 2 do their own numbers then duh.....lol  but, if you take the same 100 people and have 50 buy QPs and the other 50 work on getting their own numbers I fell that margin of 70-80% will be reduced drastically 

                             

                            would I quit playing!  Hmmm probably not but wouldn't buy that often as I love the challenge more than I'd  love the win

                            Stay In The Vortex, you'll be happy you did ..... Random? Seriously? You want me to believe that?

                              RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                              mid-Ohio
                              United States
                              Member #9
                              March 24, 2001
                              19900 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: July 18, 2015, 10:11 am - IP Logged

                              "As far as that Aussie group, I'm surprised that didn't happened more often."

                              BobP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I saw lotto syndicate ads in Lotto World magazine. Robert Serotic was involved in syndicates and won 8 or 9 jackpots. They were similar to office pools with the exception the shares cost much more.

                              In the 80s multi winners were common in Ohio lotto and possibly because of syndicate play.

                              I remember seeing syndicate ads in the 2000's from groups in Canada that were selling shares for $8-10K.  They didn't try to buy every combination but has a preparatory system that brought certain groups of combinations.  I assume they went out of business since their ads stop appearing.  There are still a few around that will e-mail you if you manage to get on a lottery player sucker mailing list.

                               * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
                                 
                                           Evil Looking