08-09-2019, 10:16 AM
(08-09-2019, 07:24 AM)ncbeareatingman Wrote:(08-09-2019, 07:09 AM)Shannon Wrote:(08-08-2019, 03:22 PM)ncbeareatingman Wrote:(08-08-2019, 01:01 PM)Shannon Wrote:(08-08-2019, 11:53 AM)HearDontListen Wrote: It's interesting that you always tried to play as close as possible to the drawing in order to have less variables come into play. Do you think it makes a difference if you pick the numbers vs letting the machine pick them for you? I was kind of thinking by letting the machine pick it, you are putting it in the hands of the universe, but maybe you have to "will it" a bit more.
Playing quick picks has it's advantages and its disadvantages. So does picking your own numbers. If you try to match a set of "random numbers" to a set of "random numbers, then your odds will definitely be what the statisticians say they are. If you pick your own numbers, it is possible to actually degrade your chances of winning the jackpot and it is possible to increase them, too. Picking numbers based on a bad method will degrade it.
I learned this when I was 21 and had a guy hire me to write a lotto prediction program based on his ideas for him. His ideas, upon closer inspection, consistently ruled out 98% of the actual winning history for that game, and improved the chances of hitting 0, 1, 2 and 3 out of 6. When I adjusted it to be what it should have been (my own version of the program), my rule set resulted in a decrease in 0/6, and an increase in everything else. The peak was at 1/6, where random chance would have it at 0/6. The weekly tests revealed that I was creating a result pool that was as likely to have jackpot winners in it as if I was playing 22-23x the number of bets I was creating for testing. In other words, by playing according to what the game's history showed was actually coming up consistently and using that as my boundaries, I was able to bet $1 and have the odds of winning the jackpot something be the same as if I bet $23. Interestingly, that did not seem to hold true for lower levels of prize tiers, where I would have had 3/6 almost every time I played if it did. To consistently get a 3/6 on a 6/53 game (22.9 million to 1 for the jackpot), calculated odds are a little over 70:1 for 3/6 on that game. I was consistently getting 3/6 out of 10 to 15 combinations at a time.
So picking your numbers with a "system" that doesn't do what the natural game results are doing will degrade your odds of a jackpot, and using what the game is doing and rejecting what it doesn't do can potentially improve your odds. Calculated odds for the game, of course, always stay the same.
Shannon are you still considering that Lottery Subliminal....as a real possibility...especially with all the experiences & feedback that people are having & giving with UMS???
Still have to work out a few things first.
OK,thank for that feedback Shannon. well hell at least this program is STILL under consideration! good sign! Thank you kindly and now back to our regularly schedueled journal of HearDontListen !! :-)
What if you expanded it to a gambling success sub?