Re: "Announcers" - detailed definition?

[Beaker]

For Thornc:

<snip>
For Beaker:

Why complicate the things when they can be kept simple. The probabilities with doubles, triples etc, will be enormously less than 1.5%. Within probability laws the numbers can't be announced, in some other magical - spiritual field not only numbers, so many things can be announced and predicted. (ex Nostradamus!!!)

Good luck with your QPiks Rob50.

The uncomplicated way to play

For the uncomplicated common man

 

[peter]

You have part of the story on announcers - and only a very small part.

Announcers can come from any dimension of draws not just the previous draw and any dimension within draws - in fact quint announcers are very interesting to look at.
Don't forget - numbers can be announced

It's like I said, Announcers can be what ever criteria you make it out to be.

 

[Beaker]

It's like I said, Announcers can be what ever criteria you make it out to be.

Peter, this comment is not directed at you.
I only quote your post as an example.

Lot's of people out there like to sit around and bash ideas - random events, impossible to predict, blah blah blah - not very fun anymore I only have one question - why are you here?

All of us brain-dead cretins know the odds and probabilities of hitting the jackpot ... and yes it got more expensive with $2 tickets.

maybe Power should start a board for all the bashers.

 

[gsobier]

Beaker:

I got a name picked out already.. ...Quick Pick Central.

Regards,
George

All of us brain-dead cretins know the odds and probabilities of hitting the jackpot ... and yes it got more expensive with $2 tickets.

maybe Power should start a board for all the bashers.

 

[peter]

Beaker, I know the post was'nt directed at me. You, I and a few others here know the benefits of study, I agree 100% with your comments on your post above.

 

[Beaker]

Bob50 meet iago31416 and on your left Power and to his left GillesD



Looking forward to your discussions/picks

 

[Beaker]

Beaker:

I got a name picked out already.. ...Quick Pick Central.

Regards,
George

As we have seen - nothing wrong with QPiks - can be BIG winners. I don't - anymore - bash the QPik player - go for it. But it's not the way I play - only in a pinch. Much more benefit brushing up on programming or Excel skills looking at the numbers. IMHO

 

[peter]

It does amaze me how people join this forum looking for the magical answer on how to win the lotto, and then insult those that have a different viewpoint than there own.
My advise to power and his followers is if you disagree with our thoughts and ideas quit coming here to post, obviously this forum is not for you.

 

[Beaker]

It does amaze me how people join this forum looking for the magical answer on how to win the lotto, and then insult those that have a different viewpoint than there own.
My advise to power and his followers is if you disagree with our thoughts and ideas quit coming here to post, obviously this forum is not for you.

I honestly believe they think we are all delusional cretins and they think they are going to save us from wasting our $$ on trying to win the jackpot and to continue on this pointless pursuit is, well, pointless.

I'm all for serious statistical discussions but no need to tell me winning the jackpot is difficult.

 

[mirage]

(Originally posted by Peter}

It's like I said, Announcers can be what ever criteria you make it out to be.

Which would include stats -- ? Why the vagueness? I can certainly buy that stats can and are applied to everything natural and/or man made, usefully, and including predictively, i.e. actuarial, business plans, etc. etc. That's (one of) the purposes of stats. This I think would also apply to the lotto and why not? Sure the odds are long but stats can still be useful.

(Originally posted by Beaker)

Lot's of people out there like to sit around and bash ideas - random events, impossible to predict, blah blah blah - not very fun anymore I only have one question - why are you here?

All of us brain-dead cretins know the odds and probabilities of hitting the jackpot ... and yes it got more expensive with $2 tickets.

maybe Power should start a board for all the bashers.

Beaker, I am not a basher. I thought I would ask a question about a concept that seemed uncharacteristically mysterious and this led to a discussion. Not meant as a personal attack on anyone but just an attempt to clarify. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Rob has said. I thought in as far as some of what he said seemed to fit with my own observations and speculations, it worked for me, but what do I know? I only know some common sense and some capacity to be logical.

However, Rob goes a bit too far - one logical sounding explanation does not mean all predictive lotto ideas are waste basket material.

Btw, when you said announcers are multi-dimensional what did you mean by that? You were speaking in the metaphoric (or common usage) sense of the term, of course, not technical. Ok, so this I now get (I think): "Announcers" are like a metaphor.

As for Power, he probably belongs to an official society for skeptical persons he is so vehement. Repeating myself, I like to keep an open mind.

If I didn't think there were at least some worthwhile ideas on this site I wouldn't be here.

 

[peter]

Mirage: Beaker's usage of the term "multi dimensional' is the same as me saying you can use any criteria you wish, and call it an announcer, I'm not being vaque here.
For example this last draw had only 1 even number, so I will look at past history and see what one E1 announces, that is only one of many different announcers.

 

[peter]

I will also look at all draws following a draw that had the first two digits as single digits, there are so many different announcers, you just set the criteria, and go looking for them.
Put all of this together and you come up with the set YOU think will win.

 

[hot4]

Peter, this comment is not directed at you.
I only quote your post as an example.

Lot's of people out there like to sit around and bash ideas - random events, impossible to predict, blah blah blah - not very fun anymore I only have one question - why are you here?

All of us brain-dead cretins know the odds and probabilities of hitting the jackpot ... and yes it got more expensive with $2 tickets.

maybe Power should start a board for all the bashers.

That would not be funny Beaker. They like to be here expecting some word to roll again the bla-bla. They will come again, without any idea you didn't hear of.

They don't want to search for a lotto strategy (they believe(?) it's usefulless), but they don't want others searching for it. Like some people that didn't believe man could go to the moon, and didn't want others to believe in that idea. I remember some people like that, now.

It seems they don't play lotto, and if they play, they don't know why, because they bet their lines expecting the expected. They don't see that this is a lotto strategy too

Of course we play expecting the less frequent to happen, the *not expected*, and to be confident of our numbers needs a hard work before the draw.
Lotto players are players as soccer, basket, hochey ones. We have to train hard, we have no pre-season , and we have to be trainee and coach at the same time. While there's a very well develloped science supporting other games (chess, draughts, soccer, jump, basket,...), for lotto players there's what we share in this forum (and others) and news. If someday there will exist a well develloped lotto science, we must agree that we are constructing its first step, and many things have been done yet!

 

[peter]

If someday there will exist a well develloped lotto science, we must agree that we are constructing its first step, and many things have been done yet!

One small step for Frank...
One giant leap for this forum
Some excellent comments Frank.

 

[hot4]

If soon, 4 numbers hit in my set they are done Peter

 

[iago31416]

One question though where can I find a mathmatical proof that each draw is independent of others? I can't seem to be able to find a proof myself!!

Two events A and B are independent if P(A/B)=P(A/\B)/P(B)=P(A) (that is, if the conditional probability is equal to the original probability). In order for this to be true, P(A/\B)=P(A)*P(B). However, in our case, we cannot calculate P(A/\B) - the probability that A and B occurs - without assuming independence.

Thus you would have to take an empirical probability for P(A/\B) - that is based on historical data - and do a statistical test to determine if P(A/\B) is statistically different from P(A)P(B).

In case you want to do it (it will take a while), P(A)P(B) = (1/49)(1/49) = .0004165 in the case of announcers.

In short, there is no proof since it is assumed as true in order to simplify (or in this case, allow) calculations.

...and for those who wonder why mathies troll these forums - you can use math / stats to help you play smarter (at least in math/stats terms) - but it is more of a case of maximizing winning potential while minimizing cost

 

[peter]

...and for those who wonder why mathies troll these forums - you can use math / stats to help you play smarter (at least in math/stats terms) - but it is more of a case of maximizing winning potential while minimizing cost

Not only do "mathies" troll these forums,
where do you think Mr. LEE gets his numbers to put on those damn fortune cookies.

 

[mirage]

(Originally posted by Powerball)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mirage
... its a totally pointless pursuit ...

BTW, this is a incomplete quote - tantamount to being a complete misquote in addition to being taken out of context. Need I say more....

 

[mirage]

(Original postings by Peter)

- I will also look at all draws following a draw that had the first two digits as single digits, there are so many different announcers, you just set the criteria, and go looking for them.


- Put all of this together and you come up with the set YOU think will win.

Thanks once again! It is clearer now.
OK, so now I'm finally starting to feel a bit more enlightened...
I was starting to think that there was some kind of secret knowledge that only the inner circle of the membership knew about...

 

[peter]

(Original postings by Peter)

- I will also look at all draws following a draw that had the first two digits as single digits, there are so many different announcers, you just set the criteria, and go looking for them.


- Put all of this together and you come up with the set YOU think will win.

Thanks once again! It is clearer now.
OK, so now I'm finally starting to feel a bit more enlightened...
I was starting to think that there was some kind of secret knowledge that only the inner circle of the membership knew about...

For your own protection Mirage, it is best you do not know what goes on in the inner circle.