Welcome Guest
You last visited December 4, 2016, 9:25 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Pick 3/4 Meter Made Math Moves

Topic closed. 250 replies. Last post 2 months ago by JADELottery.

 Page 12 of 17

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3964 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 8:02 pm - IP Logged

sniff, sniff, sniff, I smell a jimbozo.

RL

Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

Trump / 2016 & 2020

New Member

United States
Member #171734
January 11, 2016
127 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 8:32 pm - IP Logged

As expected, when I tested LakerBen's method the relatively few number of drawings (111) coupled with the odds his method of play entailed (1 in 167) resulted in a something that wouldn't be statistically valid.

He would have lost \$65 playing the JADE numbers from Jan 1, 2010 to April 30, 2010

On 110 of the 111 days he would have lost \$5, on one day (3/7/10) he would have won a net \$485

Over the long run it is a certainty that his method would also result of a loss of 50% of what he bet.

New Member

United States
Member #171734
January 11, 2016
127 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 8:35 pm - IP Logged

sniff, sniff, sniff, I smell a jimbozo.

RL

Some pseudoephedrine will clear those sniffles right up.  It's over the counter but behind the pharmacy counter.

New Member

United States
Member #171734
January 11, 2016
127 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 8:42 pm - IP Logged

"You got interested when the gap was 27 drawings long."

No, we were working well before that; we posted this topic and graph on 2015-10-25 and by that time there were at least 37 draws missed for the consecutive 6, 7 and 8 clockwise moves.

What is interesting, after our initial post on 2015-10-25 , 5 short draws later on 2015-10-30 the 6, 7, 8 clockwise moves return.

"You claimed that the gap of 27 in 6,7, and 8 not appearing was evidence of a "flaw".  "

No, we suspected, "So, given this is a computer generated number, is this flaw by accident or by design?", see questioning.

Also, there are only 8 possible three consecutive clockwise moves: 1,2,3; 2,3,4; 3,4,5; 4,5,6; 5,6,7; 6,7,8; 7,8,9, 8,9,10.

It's rarely interesting that a random streak ends, umm, randomly.

It's why people playing red after waiting for a streak of 8 lose their money just the same as people who bet randomly on red/black.

Clockwise moves don't have to be "consecutive", wouldn't it be just as noteworthy if 1,7,8 were all missing for 37 consecutive draws?

Like I've been saying, part of the flaw in your reasoning is you think something is rare when in fact it is just you only looking at a subset of the things that could be rare.  The particularly algorithm you are using to relate numbers between consecutive draws is just one of millions.  Each one of those MILLIONS of ways at manipulating the data has the same probability of showing something "rare" and therefore something "rare" is almost certainly to be found if you simply look hard enough.

It just isn't really rare.

I went to the beach last week. what are the odds that of all the trillions of grains of sand in the world my big toe would have touched THAT EXACT SEQUENCE of grains of sand as I walked on the beach.  OMG, the odds are astronomical.  But not really.

New Member

United States
Member #171734
January 11, 2016
127 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 8:52 pm - IP Logged

To put it another way.

You can look for a pattern in a random set of data and you have a certain probability of finding it based on the pattern and length of data.

OR

You can say "I'm looking for a pattern like this one" and proceed to take the same set of data that doesn't have that pattern, manipulate it with a number of algorithms and the probability of the pattern appearing is related to the pattern, length of the data set  and number of algorithms.

Here is the wager I'm willing to make, I can take any random sequence of 1000 numbers from 0-9 that you provide me, run my code against it and only by changing the lookup table (which is nothing more than the algorithm for relating adjacent samples) I can find a pattern of 42 consecutive gaps in a set of 3 values (ie not arbitrarily limited to 6,7,8 but any set of 3)

See how I'm working it?  I'm convinced the MN lottery has a flaw that generates large gaps of missing "moves" and I'm going to find out the particular algorithm (10x10 lookup table) that decodes their flaw.

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure that such "flaws" both occur regularly, if not present continually, and they are not exploitable as they end with the same random probability that created them in the first place.

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 8:52 pm - IP Logged

Groovy!

we added the extra =Mod((b - a), 10) formula to a different Excel file.

The file is at:

or

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

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:06 pm - IP Logged

sniff, sniff, sniff, I smell a jimbozo.

RL

butt-plug was our first thought.

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

New Member

United States
Member #171734
January 11, 2016
127 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:13 pm - IP Logged

"And in fact the shortest possible is 0 (the sequence of "clockwise moves" consists entirely of 6,7 and 8's."

no, this is wrong.

going from one draw occurrence to the next consecutive draw occurrence is a draw difference of exactly 1.

You are measuring the gaps of MISSING numbers

If the sequence of clockwise moves is 6,6,6,6,6 there is no gap, there no missing 6's and the answer is 0

6,5,6 is a gap of 1

New Mexico
United States
Member #86099
January 29, 2010
11117 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:18 pm - IP Logged

As expected, when I tested LakerBen's method the relatively few number of drawings (111) coupled with the odds his method of play entailed (1 in 167) resulted in a something that wouldn't be statistically valid.

He would have lost \$65 playing the JADE numbers from Jan 1, 2010 to April 30, 2010

On 110 of the 111 days he would have lost \$5, on one day (3/7/10) he would have won a net \$485

Over the long run it is a certainty that his method would also result of a loss of 50% of what he bet.

How about them cowboys!

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:21 pm - IP Logged

You are measuring the gaps of MISSING numbers

If the sequence of clockwise moves is 6,6,6,6,6 there is no gap, there no missing 6's and the answer is 0

6,5,6 is a gap of 1

no, wrong again.

 clockwise move draw draw difference 6 1 · 6 2 2 - 1 = 1 6 3 3 - 2 = 1 6 4 4 - 3 = 1 6 5 5 - 4 = 1

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

New Mexico
United States
Member #86099
January 29, 2010
11117 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:25 pm - IP Logged

How about them cowboys!

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:31 pm - IP Logged

It's rarely interesting that a random streak ends, umm, randomly.

It's why people playing red after waiting for a streak of 8 lose their money just the same as people who bet randomly on red/black.

Clockwise moves don't have to be "consecutive", wouldn't it be just as noteworthy if 1,7,8 were all missing for 37 consecutive draws?

Like I've been saying, part of the flaw in your reasoning is you think something is rare when in fact it is just you only looking at a subset of the things that could be rare.  The particularly algorithm you are using to relate numbers between consecutive draws is just one of millions.  Each one of those MILLIONS of ways at manipulating the data has the same probability of showing something "rare" and therefore something "rare" is almost certainly to be found if you simply look hard enough.

It just isn't really rare.

I went to the beach last week. what are the odds that of all the trillions of grains of sand in the world my big toe would have touched THAT EXACT SEQUENCE of grains of sand as I walked on the beach.  OMG, the odds are astronomical.  But not really.

"Clockwise moves don't have to be "consecutive", wouldn't it be just as noteworthy if 1,7,8 were all missing for 37 consecutive draws?"

no, the observation is 3 consecutive clockwise only, most specifically 6, 7, and 8.

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

New Mexico
United States
Member #86099
January 29, 2010
11117 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:34 pm - IP Logged

As expected, when I tested LakerBen's method the relatively few number of drawings (111) coupled with the odds his method of play entailed (1 in 167) resulted in a something that wouldn't be statistically valid.

He would have lost \$65 playing the JADE numbers from Jan 1, 2010 to April 30, 2010

On 110 of the 111 days he would have lost \$5, on one day (3/7/10) he would have won a net \$485

Over the long run it is a certainty that his method would also result of a loss of 50% of what he bet.

I play different combos thanks.  I don't fall under your idea of what is perfect.

How about them cowboys!

The Quantum Master
West Concord, MN
United States
Member #21
December 7, 2001
3675 Posts
Online
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 9:39 pm - IP Logged

I play different combos thanks.  I don't fall under your idea of what is perfect.

don't worry about it.

it keeps referring to a fixed test system we posted in our blog back then.

since then we have moved on to a quantum picking system.

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

New Member

United States
Member #171734
January 11, 2016
127 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 19, 2016, 11:22 pm - IP Logged

actually, the algorithm that was the One Hit Wonder has became JADE's Pick 3 Hot Box 11 and JADE's Pick 4 Hot Box 11

Not sure what "actually" has to do with it.  The JADE One Hit Wonder produced results that were consistent with what a random pick would have produced and a loss consistent with the 50% house odds the MN lottery has.  In other words, it didn't provide any advantage at all much less double the probability that would be needed to win consistently.  But if you can point me to another 100 days of Minnesota Daily 3 predictions you've made with the new and improved One Hit Wonder I'd be delighted to see how it really did.

 Page 12 of 17