Pick 3 Turbo Pl
Member
johnph77 said:
That is the point of the post. For more detailed statistics on state payouts (CAD was studied here), you can download:
http://pick3.hits.io/capayout.doc a word doc.
I just ran the stats on CAD and found their avg payout for singles boxed is $84, doubls boxed $180, and straight $558, over the last 430 draws or so. This is why players need to consider alternatives. I mean, as long as someone is going to take a risk playing this game (and there is no free lunch even *with* the better payouts, but they do increase the odds of winning), why should they accept a payout of 40% to 50% less than they can get elsewhere?
Not only does online play allow better payouts, it allows flexibility in that a player can look at all the games at once and get out of the mindset of playing only one game - the state they are in. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but if (for just one example) when tracking the data for all the games an extreme statistical anomaly presents itself, it implies a better probability of winning over the run of the mill guessing that goes on for the one game player.
Another advantage of online play (too bad the states do not have as flexible a schedule!) is you can manage your risk by 1) being able to easily test and record your results using a good program, instead of using your money, to see if what you were thinking is worth something over time, and not just lucky today and unlucky tomorrow (what the house counts on, otherwise ther would be no game), and 2) allows you the ability to play .25 tickets. *Some* states will allow you to play .50 tickets, but that is about it. Most are $1.
The reason it is a good idea to work with .25 tickets is that in the event your good idea does not pan out, the loss is less. Another reason is you in fact might *have* a good idea, but the timing is not precise (something to be mastered if possible - at least get better at it), you can re-play the same idea for a few draws out, perhaps skipping a draw on the way, so yo can 'capture the condition' you have anticipated.
Since we cannot purchase at one time (cheaply, I might add), let's say, an 'option' for a K5 in the game of, for example, CAE, *if*, based on our analysis of the data (need the data first of all - good data -, and need to now what to do with it) if we want to 'emulate' having an option over time to cash in on the 'inevitable' (so our analysis would indicate) appearance of K5, we will have to, as it were, repurchase the right to cash in on that development each day.
The downside is the payout (even the ones I mention) are fixed (and in the case of the state payout they change - for the worse - as even their maximum payouts are lower than the fixed payouts online). This means (depending onthe type and size of the bet) at some point the total cost of playing for x number of draws will equal the payout on the win. In order to end up net profitable on the play, you will have to increase your commitment in dollar terms, buying enough tickets to insure a net profit in the event of a win, covering all previous losses leading up to the draw where your condition appears (and you win).
This is the appeal of the three number game. If the payout are high enough, conditions are favorable in terms of the time an event is likely to occur, and you can cover all the known contingencies reasonably, this sets the stage for winning on a bottom line net play to play basis, a 'play' being zeroing in, for example, on a key number to play within x draws, you play it for x draws (or less hopefully), and the number eventually plays.
In terms or risk reward, this is where it gets a little ugly. The trade off for a high probability pay is it requires the employment of several combinations, and depoending upong the lay, can be (for a boxed play as high as 120 (extrapolated for a straight play 720). Obviously the fewer combinations the better, as the payouts do not increase with the numbers of combinations in play.
There are several types of plays to take advantage of some of the most fundamental statistical develoments of the game, starting as low as 10 combinations. And applying a little logic (versus luck), you can even whittle those down, sometimes to as low as 2 (I've done that once, but it is too rare to really emphasize). So it just depends on the kinf of play that it is. The point is, if you *may* have to go out x+2 or 3 or more draws beyond the break even point, it might be highly advantageous to be able to start small to cut down on the expense down the line for the play, something playing online can facilitate with the .25 tickets (to begin with).
That is not to say you cannot begin with a $1 ticket, it is just to say that the .25 is available as a risk/account management tool.
The benefit (a BIG one) of playing with the state is you walk down to the store, buy your ticket anonymously, and if you win, you get (if your ticket is less than $600) tax free cash on the spot, and you walk away with no hassles, cash in your pocket. And I'll be honest here, I sure wish the states would set better payouts as tey are online, and alow for up to $900 tax free cash winnings, but they are not there.
On one hand, yeah, you get a free wheeling exchange, and a direct cash transaction, BUT the risk of losing is 40% to 50% higher. So *anyone* (unless they were born lucky, and some people are) trading with the stte is by default in a definitively losing position. On the other hand, playing online does allow big payouts, but it is a hassle to set the account up (that is not so bad), but funding it is kind of a pain. The online sites are all overseas, so you have to take a risk setting up an account with an offshore company.
Then, of course, everybody wants your name, address, phone number, and all the rest of it because our 'wonderful' government likes to keep its beady eyes on everything we are doing, etc. The 'best' way to open an online account is to fly to the country where the company is, and then make a cash deposit. But barring that, you'll have to jump through a few 'e-hoops' to get your money in the online account (otherwise you cannot make a wager).
If you are really clever you can set up an accounts(s) using aliases to protect your identity, but also have the winnings pipe into an acount under your control. The good news is once the account is set up and funded you are ready to go, and the major online gamers have no record of running off with anybody's money. That doesn't mean it cannot happen - hence a level of risk when you deposit your money in some account somewhere - but based on the known past performance over several years it is not likely to happen.
Nonetheless, to control this level of risk, initial deposits can be small. The objective is, anyway, to win enough so you are using winnings (the house's money) to play the game. The sooner you can replace your initial capital stake with house money the better.
Setting the technical issues of setting up an online account and funding it aside, once it is all set up things go pretty smoothly. It comes down to whether or not you have a good idea and can win. The companies pay, and when they do you either get a check in the mail or a deposit to your account. I know several players who play online and they'll all say the same thing.
But you should never be misled by better payouts. The fact that they are offered should tell you that the house still expects to win (and they do as a rule). However, for a layer with superior information and a superior program to dissect it all and develop a winning strategy, they are the few the house is a net loser to.
Getting an edge over the house requres good data, a wholistic approach to all the games, the highest possible payouts, and a powerful program to put it all together. I am talking about a consistent, default, winning edge, where the role of house and player is reversed intrinsically. This has been my thesis for a couple of years now and for the rare times I play based on the data I use so far so good. I am always looking, though, for other ways to exploit the data.
So on balance, i favor online pay, otherwise, without the better payout structure, there really isn't a credible possibility, over a long periofd of time, of winning. There is just no way I pay with the state. If I take the risk, I take it for as much as I can get, and that is the bottom line.
blitzed