4000 Line Wheel for 6/49+Bonus Lottery
- Thread starter BushHappy
- Start date
CMF
Member
Suggestion for the big spenders ...
Now, I think we owe it to these big spenders to help them out. Of course I don't really understand why they have opted for Lotto instead of Blackjack. My understanding of Lotto is a little old lady spending $4 or so has an equal chance of getting the big one as some one or group splurging $2000.
Maybe, if we divide the 13,983,816 possibilities into 7 groups of 1,997,668 not mathematically but randomly and then monitor for a few months the occurence of the winning combination in each group. If at some stage we think one group is not getting enough we stake our plunge on that group.
Question is - have the odds changed? Will that "little old lady" beat you every time.
Colin
Now, I think we owe it to these big spenders to help them out. Of course I don't really understand why they have opted for Lotto instead of Blackjack. My understanding of Lotto is a little old lady spending $4 or so has an equal chance of getting the big one as some one or group splurging $2000.
Maybe, if we divide the 13,983,816 possibilities into 7 groups of 1,997,668 not mathematically but randomly and then monitor for a few months the occurence of the winning combination in each group. If at some stage we think one group is not getting enough we stake our plunge on that group.
Question is - have the odds changed? Will that "little old lady" beat you every time.
Colin
Rob Erhardt
Member
Re: Suggestion for the big spenders ...
The 'little old lady" has a jackpot probability of 1 in 3,495,954.
The "big spenders" have a jackpot probability of 1 in 6,991
Now if you were, say, jumping off a tall building and had to
choose one of the two "odds of survival"...which would you
pick?
My point is...Lotto is for FUN!
If your a serious gambler, well, better hit the blackjack tables.
Cheers,
Rob
CMF said:Now, I think we owe it to these big spenders to help them out. Of course I don't really understand why they have opted for Lotto instead of Blackjack. My understanding of Lotto is a little old lady spending $4 or so has an equal chance of getting the big one as some one or group splurging $2000.
Maybe, if we divide the 13,983,816 possibilities into 7 groups of 1,997,668 not mathematically but randomly and then monitor for a few months the occurence of the winning combination in each group. If at some stage we think one group is not getting enough we stake our plunge on that group.
Question is - have the odds changed? Will that "little old lady" beat you every time.
Colin
The 'little old lady" has a jackpot probability of 1 in 3,495,954.
The "big spenders" have a jackpot probability of 1 in 6,991
Now if you were, say, jumping off a tall building and had to
choose one of the two "odds of survival"...which would you
pick?
My point is...Lotto is for FUN!
If your a serious gambler, well, better hit the blackjack tables.
Cheers,
Rob
CMF
Member
Re: Suggestion for the big spenders ...
So Rob ...
According to you if I made 2,000 plays per draw then after some 7,000 Draws I should have got the jackpot or it's just around the corner!
In other words 14 million plays.
Problem 1: At one Draw per week we are talking 134 years.
Problem 2: Given the nature of randomness the big one might come up in the 134 years but there again it might take 400 years.
The crux of what I said remains the same - the difference between spending $2,000 and $4 in search of the 1st prize given the odds is hardly worth mentioning.
Even if you spent $3.5 million per draw you could still go maybe 8 or 9 draws and not get first prize - just like in tossing a coin.
Isn't the point you're making the point I'm making? Regarding your tall building analogy - does it matter whether it's the Empire State Building or a 5 storey building - apart from enjoying the view a little longer - the outcome is the same. Question: Do you put a bigger inprint in the footpath from the former or the latter? Or are they both just jelly landings?
Now, how about getting your teeth into the 2nd paragraph and giving me an indication of the odds there - are they still the same?
Colin
Rob Erhardt said:
So Rob ...
According to you if I made 2,000 plays per draw then after some 7,000 Draws I should have got the jackpot or it's just around the corner!
In other words 14 million plays.
Problem 1: At one Draw per week we are talking 134 years.
Problem 2: Given the nature of randomness the big one might come up in the 134 years but there again it might take 400 years.
The crux of what I said remains the same - the difference between spending $2,000 and $4 in search of the 1st prize given the odds is hardly worth mentioning.
Even if you spent $3.5 million per draw you could still go maybe 8 or 9 draws and not get first prize - just like in tossing a coin.
Isn't the point you're making the point I'm making? Regarding your tall building analogy - does it matter whether it's the Empire State Building or a 5 storey building - apart from enjoying the view a little longer - the outcome is the same. Question: Do you put a bigger inprint in the footpath from the former or the latter? Or are they both just jelly landings?
Now, how about getting your teeth into the 2nd paragraph and giving me an indication of the odds there - are they still the same?
Colin
Last edited:
Rob Erhardt
Member
Re: Re: Suggestion for the big spenders ...
CMF said:
Rob Erhardt
Member
Lotto Odds
Colin,
Its not "according to me"...its a mathmatical fact.
But you are right...our point is precisely the same.
2000 a draw would "ruin you". And, even though
the odds improve...I`m not gunna jump off that building!
People play Lotto for many different reasons. I enjoy
the creation, and testing of designs.
Realistically, your playing to win a 5 number prize.
Otherwise, you might as well go play checkers.
Regards,
Rob
Colin,
Its not "according to me"...its a mathmatical fact.
But you are right...our point is precisely the same.
2000 a draw would "ruin you". And, even though
the odds improve...I`m not gunna jump off that building!
People play Lotto for many different reasons. I enjoy
the creation, and testing of designs.
Realistically, your playing to win a 5 number prize.
Otherwise, you might as well go play checkers.
Regards,
Rob
CMF
Member
Minimum Play Set for 1st Prize Win in reasonable time.
Rob
I've done a few calculations and come up with a prognosis that you will probably get a 1st prize win every couple of years in a 6/49 Lotto drawn once a week if you played 100,200 Random Selection plays every draw.
Problem is your outlay could easily exceed the first prize value especially if shared and you can't rule out a bad run with no 1st prizes for say 4 or 6 years.
Just ask Brad for details - he understands it all!
Regards
Colin
Rob
I've done a few calculations and come up with a prognosis that you will probably get a 1st prize win every couple of years in a 6/49 Lotto drawn once a week if you played 100,200 Random Selection plays every draw.
Problem is your outlay could easily exceed the first prize value especially if shared and you can't rule out a bad run with no 1st prizes for say 4 or 6 years.
Just ask Brad for details - he understands it all!
Regards
Colin
Last edited:
Brad
Member
Ok CMF, you can stop your little game now and kindly remove my name from your new signature.
Rather than to respond directly to my earlier post in 'Anything Goes' you chose a backhanded approach, which doesn't really surprise me based on some post I have seen from you, however it is why I took exception to it.
You can’t even presume to know what my knowledge is, what I believe and don’t believe, mainly because I have not discussed anything lotto related with you, and you can rest assured that I don’t wish to start now. So do us both a favour and go practice your sarcasm on someone else.
Rather than to respond directly to my earlier post in 'Anything Goes' you chose a backhanded approach, which doesn't really surprise me based on some post I have seen from you, however it is why I took exception to it.
You can’t even presume to know what my knowledge is, what I believe and don’t believe, mainly because I have not discussed anything lotto related with you, and you can rest assured that I don’t wish to start now. So do us both a favour and go practice your sarcasm on someone else.
Last edited:
CMF
Member
Grow up!
Brad
The presumptions have been very much one sided - anyone can check that out.
What you don't seem to realise is that your Walter Mitty, policeman ways are a little tiresome after a while.
The number of people around the World that sustain an interest in Lotto numbers is indeed small. There are a lot of people that look into it - then move on, having lost interest or revert to their old particular way of filling in the numbers. Within this field a few names stand out from the work they have done - whether or not you agree with them. Brad - you are not in that group - time to take a reality check - recognise your limitations and work within them.
Why you presume to be condescending and judgemental to me is a reflection on yourself and lack of understanding where you fit in in the general pecking order. If you are some kind of prefect on this Forum then I am unaware of that. I kowtow to no one and have generally treated previous remarks by you as being unworthy of response.
I leave it to the Webmaster of this site who in your opinion should have kicked me out long ago. You see - you even presume to know better than him. Are you starting to see yourself as others see you?
My suggestion to you is - go and have a cold shower and maybe think about the fact that generally what I say is the accepted way of thinking by the majority of the general public and academia too - not just the little Lotto Forum Community. The fact that I go to a lot of trouble to prove something is wrong probably baffles quite a few people because they believe it is self evidently wrong - but I do. You may think you need to censure truthful information and cocoon the members that share your particular views - but once again that is presumptious on your part.
Colin
Brad
The presumptions have been very much one sided - anyone can check that out.
What you don't seem to realise is that your Walter Mitty, policeman ways are a little tiresome after a while.
The number of people around the World that sustain an interest in Lotto numbers is indeed small. There are a lot of people that look into it - then move on, having lost interest or revert to their old particular way of filling in the numbers. Within this field a few names stand out from the work they have done - whether or not you agree with them. Brad - you are not in that group - time to take a reality check - recognise your limitations and work within them.
Why you presume to be condescending and judgemental to me is a reflection on yourself and lack of understanding where you fit in in the general pecking order. If you are some kind of prefect on this Forum then I am unaware of that. I kowtow to no one and have generally treated previous remarks by you as being unworthy of response.
I leave it to the Webmaster of this site who in your opinion should have kicked me out long ago. You see - you even presume to know better than him. Are you starting to see yourself as others see you?
My suggestion to you is - go and have a cold shower and maybe think about the fact that generally what I say is the accepted way of thinking by the majority of the general public and academia too - not just the little Lotto Forum Community. The fact that I go to a lot of trouble to prove something is wrong probably baffles quite a few people because they believe it is self evidently wrong - but I do. You may think you need to censure truthful information and cocoon the members that share your particular views - but once again that is presumptious on your part.
Colin
Brad
Member
... and another thing ...
Btw, CMF,
the reason you give for getting banned from the other lottery forum is incomplete I think.
You say: "Oh, and I believe Computer Generated Lotto draws are OK - got kicked out of Lotterypost, like a few others for believing in that!"
I read that there was some possible e-mail spoofing involved in order to draw members away from that site, among other things. Do you remember that? Now that kinda fits with your badly camouflaged sig here.
Then later on there was also plagiarism on another site, eh? Surely you'd be man enough to take credit for that if it did happen!?
Good luck in getting that PRNG ... any way you can ... beg borrow or ...???
Btw, CMF,
the reason you give for getting banned from the other lottery forum is incomplete I think.
You say: "Oh, and I believe Computer Generated Lotto draws are OK - got kicked out of Lotterypost, like a few others for believing in that!"
I read that there was some possible e-mail spoofing involved in order to draw members away from that site, among other things. Do you remember that? Now that kinda fits with your badly camouflaged sig here.
Then later on there was also plagiarism on another site, eh? Surely you'd be man enough to take credit for that if it did happen!?
Good luck in getting that PRNG ... any way you can ... beg borrow or ...???
CMF
Member
The best Brad can do ...
The exchange that occurred with Todd Northrup of LotteryPost is in my records and can be posted. I was sticking to my guns in putting forward a view opposing his on Computer Generated Draws. He gave me an ultimatum to back off or my membership would be curtailed. I went and sat in my armchair for a while - I thought of my Dad who fought in the 2nd World War as an ordinary Sapper who at that time had three children including me - I thought of my step-grandfather on my mother's side Sgt Percy Statton, winner of the Victoria Cross in 1918, who I had the pleasure of knowing well - and I decided I owed it to them who risked their lives, not to be intimidated and I informed him of that. Todd Northrup then immediately terminated my membership and did not inform the membership. You may wish to ask Todd Northrup how he currently sees me, as others have done and with his permission communicated that information to me.
I informed Bob Perkis at the time of the Florida Hurricanes that I might start up my own website - I subsequently informed about 7 members when I had it up of my whereabouts and invited them to have a look not join. I did invite George #2 at LotteryPost to air what Todd Northrup had deleted and John to post something. That does not fit the definition of spamming.
The "plagiarism" you refer to has already been dealt with on this website and concerns Johnph7 who questioned the source of my SUMS table generated in Access because the font used was the same as his generated in Excel - I have never seen John's table on his website. A probable reason for this is that my general standard in programming and using SQL could modestly be put at advanced. I have no difficulty in writing and following SQL strings that are over an A4 page long - a short string like this I can write with my eyes closed: -
SELECT [Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6] AS Comb6Sum, Count([Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6]) AS Comb6Count INTO tblAll649SumsGroupedCounted
FROM AllCombs649
GROUP BY [Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6]
ORDER BY Count([Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6]) DESC;
I leave it up to John, who I have respect for, to acknowledge he was out of order there.
Finally, regarding my RNG or PRNG I already have it and it is entirely my own creation. In fact it performs so well that maybe it can be regarded as a System!
Brad, I have answered your innuendos matter of factly. How you raise them is a reflection on your character. In my own case I have assidiously followed an honest path in my personal and business life and foregone a lot of income because I put principle before financial gain.
Brad, you question my integrity - but your questions belie your own integrity. If you had done this on my site to my worst enemy you would have been summarily deleted.
Colin
Brad said:
The exchange that occurred with Todd Northrup of LotteryPost is in my records and can be posted. I was sticking to my guns in putting forward a view opposing his on Computer Generated Draws. He gave me an ultimatum to back off or my membership would be curtailed. I went and sat in my armchair for a while - I thought of my Dad who fought in the 2nd World War as an ordinary Sapper who at that time had three children including me - I thought of my step-grandfather on my mother's side Sgt Percy Statton, winner of the Victoria Cross in 1918, who I had the pleasure of knowing well - and I decided I owed it to them who risked their lives, not to be intimidated and I informed him of that. Todd Northrup then immediately terminated my membership and did not inform the membership. You may wish to ask Todd Northrup how he currently sees me, as others have done and with his permission communicated that information to me.
I informed Bob Perkis at the time of the Florida Hurricanes that I might start up my own website - I subsequently informed about 7 members when I had it up of my whereabouts and invited them to have a look not join. I did invite George #2 at LotteryPost to air what Todd Northrup had deleted and John to post something. That does not fit the definition of spamming.
The "plagiarism" you refer to has already been dealt with on this website and concerns Johnph7 who questioned the source of my SUMS table generated in Access because the font used was the same as his generated in Excel - I have never seen John's table on his website. A probable reason for this is that my general standard in programming and using SQL could modestly be put at advanced. I have no difficulty in writing and following SQL strings that are over an A4 page long - a short string like this I can write with my eyes closed: -
SELECT [Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6] AS Comb6Sum, Count([Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6]) AS Comb6Count INTO tblAll649SumsGroupedCounted
FROM AllCombs649
GROUP BY [Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6]
ORDER BY Count([Sel1]+[Sel2]+[Sel3]+[Sel4]+[Sel5]+[Sel6]) DESC;
I leave it up to John, who I have respect for, to acknowledge he was out of order there.
Finally, regarding my RNG or PRNG I already have it and it is entirely my own creation. In fact it performs so well that maybe it can be regarded as a System!
Brad, I have answered your innuendos matter of factly. How you raise them is a reflection on your character. In my own case I have assidiously followed an honest path in my personal and business life and foregone a lot of income because I put principle before financial gain.
Brad, you question my integrity - but your questions belie your own integrity. If you had done this on my site to my worst enemy you would have been summarily deleted.
Colin