6/49 Discussion For February 28, 2004

[Beaker]

by the way 999/1296/1397/1497/1999

Kaboom!

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

by the way 999/1296/1397/1497/1999

Kaboom!

And we saw that 45....last draw...

 

[Beaker]

And we saw that 45....last draw...

Precisely, and the high draws are lurking and our magic pair is very much around the high draws.

the best of the best is 1397

20-21-22-34-36-43 B06

Allllllll Aboooooooaaaarddd

 

[powerball]

Actually, according to lottery researchers, the first two picks were excellent and had higher expected values than the final pick he kept. It is precisely the fact that nobody else would select those "abnormal" picks that makes them have an abnormal expected return in parimutuel lotteries. If you are intelligent enough to understand statistical research, be sure to read the excellent September 2003 research paper.

A guy in front of me bought a 6/49 ticket quick pick
I looked at the numbers...
They were 01-02-03-47-48-49 I told the guy to ask for a refund which he did...took another one...the numbers were
41-42-43-44-45-49
I said to ask for another refund... Which he did again...On the third attempt he got...
11-18-20-23-31-43
I told him right away this one is a keeper

 

[gsobier]

Dennis:

I saved you the trouble... ...the article he is referring to really does not have anything to do with deciding if a Quick Pick is a keeper. If you are not able to know what to play when selecting DNs, just forget about it.

I'd think this post was just an excuse to be insulting if you asked me.

Regards,
George

Actually, according to lottery researchers, the first two picks were excellent and had higher expected values than the final pick he kept. It is precisely the fact that nobody else would select those "abnormal" picks that makes them have an abnormal expected return in parimutuel lotteries. If you are intelligent enough to understand statistical research, be sure to read the excellent September 2003 research paper.

 

[powerball]

I am not arguing about Quick Picks. Contrary to Dennis' assumptions, I never choose Quick Piks myself. I hate it that Ontario and Western Canada forces their Lotto Super 7 players to get at least 2 Quick Picks instead of having the freedom to choose their own numbers like most of us here prefer to do.

My point is that since there is a 94-98% chance of a lotto ticket losing, you need to focus on winning the greatest possible amount IF your numbers come up. There are plays which will increase or decrease the expected payoff in the unlikely event that you do win. Aside from the research paper above, has anybody read Dr. Z's 6/49 Lotto Guidebook?

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

Actually, according to lottery researchers, the first two picks were excellent and had higher expected values than the final pick he kept. It is precisely the fact that nobody else would select those "abnormal" picks that makes them have an abnormal expected return in parimutuel lotteries. If you are intelligent enough to understand statistical research, be sure to read the excellent September 2003 research paper.

I would have told him to keep them if It was time for this to come up...But It was not ...
As far of the line he kept.... It was and it is a keeper...

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

I am not arguing about Quick Picks. Contrary to Dennis' assumptions, I never choose Quick Piks myself. I hate it that Ontario and Western Canada forces their Lotto Super 7 players to get at least 2 Quick Picks instead of having the freedom to choose their own numbers like most of us here prefer to do.

My point is that since there is a 94-98% chance of a lotto ticket losing, you need to focus on winning the greatest possible amount IF your numbers come up. There are plays which will increase or decrease the expected payoff in the unlikely event that you do win. Aside from the research paper above, has anybody read Dr. Z's 6/49 Lotto Guidebook?

We are way above this kind of crap ....Dr. Vargai...Dr. Z's ...etc.... We are the ones that should be read....
Show us your picks....And hope to have half a run like some I had on this board....
You have so much to prove....I don't...

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

And don't forget ....Update your site...

 

[Dennis Bassboss]

Actually, according to lottery researchers, the first two picks were excellent and had higher expected values than the final pick he kept. It is precisely the fact that nobody else would select those "abnormal" picks that makes them have an abnormal expected return in parimutuel lotteries. If you are intelligent enough to understand statistical research, be sure to read the excellent September 2003 research paper.

I hope your intelligent enough to read this one too...

What's up???
Lets hope I'm not one draw in advance like the last few draws...
09-11-14-17-26-28-34-39-41-43-46-48
Hints...Hints...26-34

I would go head to head anytime against Roger Broihanne...What I find funny in these reports is that they always compared their claims and data using the past history and at the very same time they are telling us that past history doesn't reflect on the future...
A big paradox right there...
As an example ...They are taking some extreme draws like draw 1748=38-43-44-45-46-47 bonus 17(that we can predict...We have predicted some like this one already) And they are trying to sell us to the idea that anything can happen...They will say ...''See we told you that it could hit''
What they do forget is to look at what was announced before it hit...We never said that It couldn't hit but we are saying to play it when it is time to play it and this is certainly not always the case...When investigating the history of that extreme draw we are finding clues way before it ever hit...In the 11 draws preceding that extreme draw the number on first position was a high draw announcer 7 times out of 11...
You don't play these kind of numbers anytime..you play them when they have a chance to hit...
So far we are beating up ramdom plays here...We are destroying all these books writers that can't achieved what we are doing here...And it will go increasingly more obvious in the near future...
I have beaten ramdom play so bad myself that only a stubborn individual would try to argue this...A non-credible individual that is...

 

[gsobier]

Dennis:

I agree there... ...they are just book writers for one purpose... ...to make money off of you.

Regards,
George

I hope your intelligent enough to read this one too...
I would go head to head anytime against Roger Broihanne...What I find funny in these reports is that they always compared their claims and data using the past history and at the very same time they are telling us that past history doesn't reflect on the future...
A big paradox right there...
As an example ...They are taking some extreme draws like draw 1748=38-43-44-45-46-47 bonus 17(that we can predict...We have predicted some like this one already) And they are trying to sell us to the idea that anything can happen...They will say ...''See we told you that it could hit''
What they do forget is to look at what was announced before it hit...We never said that It couldn't hit but we are saying to play it when it is time to play it and this is certainly not always the case...When investigating the history of that extreme draw we are finding clues way before it ever hit...In the 11 draws preceding that extreme draw the number on first position was a high draw announcer 7 times out of 11...
You don't play these kind of numbers anytime..you play them when they have a chance to hit...
So far we are beating up ramdom plays here...We are destroying all these books writers that can't achieved what we are doing here...And it will go increasingly more obvious in the near future...
I have beaten ramdom play so bad myself that only a stubborn individual would try to argue this...A non-credible individual that is...

 

[hot4]

Re: 7 groups of 4 numbers updated

Let's try again 4-5 numbers (from 0-1 per group) inside these 7 groups:

01-03*-05-37 (1)
04-29-30-41 (0)
06-10-11-35 (0)
07-18-27*-33 (1)
09-21-34-43 (0)
13-38-40-49 (0)
19-22-32-46* (1)

Just 3 hits again.