Andrew

Yes I did.

Jim:
Probability with 6 tickets: 6 in 13,983,816 or so high my Computer calculator shows it in Hex.

Joe:
Probability with 8 tickets: 8 in 13,983,816 or not much better than previous.

Joe has more tickets than Jim so the probability of him getting a first prize is marginally better than Jim.

Regards
Colin

ps I have rather reluctantly downloaded Pick-632.exe from Ion Saliu's site and had a quick look. Firstly, I must say it's primitive - I look at it and to me it's like looking at something pre-historic. The thrust of what he is on about seems to be that from a bunch of numbers he can extract a pattern and this pattern will apply to another bunch of independent numbers. Oh yeah! - and pigs do fly.

Andrew it's almost below my dignity to entertain the possiblity that this garbage should be taken seriously - but I will tear it to bits as I promised him I would. To me he's just a comical con artist - and deservedlly, utterly detested in mathematical circles.

So let's pick up the pace a bit Andrew - once I'm focused I like to think fast and furious otherwise I get bored. Surely you're not quitting before we've started? Colin's fired up - he wants action. 

Andrew

The thought did occur to me that you may be referring to the combinations of 6 from respectively 6 and 8 integers but that is not what you were saying. I let it slide as the net effect is the same ie Joe with 28 tickets has a marginally better chance of winning first prize than Jim with 1 ticket.

Jim:
Probability with 1 ticket: 1 in 13,983,816.

Joe:
Probability with 28 tickets: 28 in 13,983,816 or roughly 1 in half a million.

Joe's chances are 28 times Jim's but in each case their chances of winning first prize are similar to me becoming the next adored American Idol. We can reduce it to 1 in half a million but the fact remains there are still nearly 14 million other numbers that can come up rather than our lousy 28. If you purchased 7 million tickets your chances are 50/50 of getting the First Prize winning number ie if you did this 10 times with a cost per ticket of $1 and a first prize of 7 million you could be unlucky and be down 70 million or if you won 5 times be only down 35 million or if you're Champagne Charlie and won 10 times without sharing first prize you'd recover your costs and have a bit of loose change from the 2nd tier prizes down. There's an interesting couple of points to make from this. One, keep your wagering very small in relation to the first prize. Two, if you are a consistent player for some 10 or 15 years and win a second tier prize you may well find when you do your sums that having been so lucky to win such a prize it has not put you in front for what you have spent over the years. 

In terms of winning FIRST PRIZE the chances cannot be equaled by buying a lesser number of tickets; jackpot lotteries are not about delusive improvements (Wheels/Covers already disproved by me) in getting more 3's but about winning FIRST PRIZE or at least NOT DIMINISHING your chances in that regard.

Lead on Andrew, maybe new pinnacles in feats of human endeavor await me - but the patience is wearing thin. You'll have to stop using those little toy sponge hammers though - they tickle.

Regards
Colin

Andrew

Those who know me know that I'm exercising remarkable forbearance and restraint in letting your drivel continue - there are some no doubt who regard it as an unfair match as your ability to do anything other than express some fawning admiration for the jolly hoaxer appears very limited. Perhaps you're counting on me to terminate the discourse as there are very little facts to work with in your latest post.

I don't want verbal diarrhea Andrew - that's for the WTG's and High Fivers at the fairyland forum - you know, the ones that celebrate the excesses of mediocrity and congratulate each other on having rolled out of bed in the early afternoon. In terms of what Ion Saliu can do in extracting data from part of a history to apply to the known later part - believe me I can run rings around him - but it's useless - what you optimise for 10,000 draws or 0.07% of the potential numbers does not apply to a future 10,000 Draws. Tests Andrew, Tests. Done 'em all. Know what I'm talking about. Do you? I don't back-test - I forward test and apply the same criteria as the Lottery Companies ie you get a Five and that's it - you don't get the four and the three.

Cut the crap. I've given you a good run - produce the goodies or quit.

Colin 

Andrew

Once again nothing to work with. (Number groupings presumably don't involve numbers according to your lack of reasoning - I can see how Ion appeals to you - Do you go to bed with a book of Socrates under your pillow? To kiss and fondle of course, not to read or understand.)

Your latest demented meanderings lead me to believe that I may be discoursing with someone in the final stages of irreversible dementia. (But I'm getting a laugh - and that means I'll live longer - so hopefully if you're not stressing out too much and not producing too much of a mess for the nurses we'll continue. How is your nursing home, anyway? Treating you right? Eating your greens are you? Don't forget to eat your broccoli - it's good for you - ignore Bushy on that one. Incidentally, he's smarter than what some of the smart ones think - he knows that voter appeal lies in not appearing too smart - he's actually a better actor than Reagen was - his down home fumbling and stumbling is all put on - just ask any other Pilot that can drive an F16. You can't think fast in one of those - it's goodbye very fast.)

Andrew, you have a good rest and see tomorrow whether a few brain cells will kick in so that I can look at a sentence which has a faint whiff of intelligence. At the moment I feel like one of those Radio Astronomers that have been searching the heaven's for 40 years and got nothing - not so much as a Doo Doo De Doo Doo Doo.

Nighty Night. Sweet dreams of Ion. Don't bump your head on Socrates!

Spokane Noche
(Colin tiptoes out of the room.)

Bye Andrew

No surprise there.

To summarize:

• Andrew believes using some kind of filterring to reduce the number of integers and then make a set of combinations to play from these integers is the way to go. My tests have shown it doesn't matter what numbers you use to make a full wheel or system - if you're constructing a set use all integers or about 80% or more or maximize the unique threes or minimise the repetition of threes in your number set. If you use Random Selections then you are effectively using all the numbers.
  
• Andrew believes an old primitive DOS program by Ion Saliu can assist in reducing the number of integers to make a set of combinations and subsequent filtering. My advice is leave the mess alone - there's nothing of merit there. Filtering is bunkum.
  
• I have created a sophisticated program for extracting whatever there is in a history and would put this up against anything on the market. The reason I don't sell it is because I'm not a con artist. It produces returns equal to or above those of Random Selections
  
• Percentage returns in Pick 6 Jackpot Lotto are mainly influenced by prizes for 5 out of 6 upwards. One 5 is worth 19 4's and 352 3's combined. As far as the number of 5's achieved from using histories is concerned there is little or no improvement over the ambit for Random Selections.

It has been my experience to find that proponents of various systems when subjected to the scientific method cannot substantiate their claims. Andrew was unable to describe something that I could subject to repeated testing. In any case what I knew he was getting at has already been tested by me and found wanting - so I was really just waiting for him in his own words to describe it. I guess somebody told him what would happen when I eventually pinned him down. While admiring Andrew's pluck and bluff he unfortunately was out of his depth.

 Colin