UK Lottery Using New Technology
nigel
looked substantially different to the old machines. I think they're
using new balls too.
(Un)fortunately Arthur isn't a white puddy tat who scoops the balls out
with a paw because his teeth have rotted away.
(And it's a rollover on Wednesday btw, estimated jackpot �7 million)
Evil Nigel
Jack Ricci
"nigel" <use...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZPSdnXXHQJ4O9JXW...@brightview.co.uk...
...You understand that they only did this because they all know Harry's
balls...
LottoHackJack
Robert Perkis
If these are new machines and ballsets, it's an excellent
opportunity to see if two thirds of each of the hot, average
and cold as previously ranked numbers change places over the
next six months as I've found they do in the Florida Lotto
when the old ballsets are destroyed and replaced with new.
Robert Perkis
http://www.lotto-logix.com
nigel
I have a new system which had been developing promisingly and I was
half-expecting it to ease past 3SDs this weekend, but the results of its
forecasts for Saturday's UK lottery have completely screwed that.
I have vague theories about how the past history of a PRNG is useful if
it comes from a homogenic population, and any deviations or exceptions
might compromise the integrity (eg all test draws must either be
included or excluded) but I haven't really tested the premise. New
machines wouldn't obviously seem to be a problem (unless you're watching
for mechanical defects) provided the technology stays the same, but it
will be interesting to see how the new system performs on the UK lottery
over the next few draws following the technology change.
Evil Nigel
Robert Perkis
If you've ever played a game like soccer using a ball
inflated to the wrong pressure or a dead tennis ball
you know how that affects game play.
Just for sake of argument, say the lotto ball sets are
not manufactured all together at the same time in a
pressurized sterile room. Say instead the barometric
pressure has run the gamut over the course of manufacture.
What if some balls have considerably more "bounce" then
others, would this affect their capture rate? Would they
bounce higher, faster, pass in front of the capture point
more often?
I'm not saying this must be so, and there are solid lotto
balls as well as air blown to be considered depending on
where the game is played. I am simply suggesting it may
be a possibility in some games that the capture rate of
some numbers may change when the ballsets are changed.
Robert Perkis
http://www.lotto-logix.com
Michael
"Robert Perkis" <rob...@icdus.com> wrote in message
news:4B09AF07...@icdus.com...
I say doable, or something along those lines using the laws
of physics and computing power to give an overwhelming
advantage to the "insider". Look at what was achievable with
roulette, legally too....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article399673.ece
Cheers Mick
Jack Ricci
> If you've ever played a game like soccer using a ball
> inflated to the wrong pressure or a dead tennis ball
> you know how that affects game play.
>
> Just for sake of argument, say the lotto ball sets are
> not manufactured all together at the same time in a
> pressurized sterile room. Say instead the barometric
> pressure has run the gamut over the course of manufacture.
>
> What if some balls have considerably more "bounce" then
> others, would this affect their capture rate? Would they
> bounce higher, faster, pass in front of the capture point
> more often?
>
> I'm not saying this must be so, and there are solid lotto
> balls as well as air blown to be considered depending on
> where the game is played. I am simply suggesting it may
> be a possibility in some games that the capture rate of
> some numbers may change when the ballsets are changed.
>
> Robert Perkis
> http://www.lotto-logix.com
...Oh oh...so past performance history suddenly matters again?
LottoHackJack
Robert Perkis
Only for sorting the numbers into groups to pull numbers
from. Take the Florida 6/53 as an example. If you sort
the numbers into roughly even groups of hot, average and
cold and use two numbers from each in building all possible
combinations, you will be correct roughly 50% of the time
and the odds drop from roughly 1 in 23 million to 1 in 3
million.
Robert Perkis
http://www.lotto-logix.com
Colin Fairbrother
>
> - Show quoted text -
The biggest ignoramus in the history of Lotto analysis misinformation,
Robert Perkis, is at it again.
Colin Fairbrother
www.LottoPoster.com
Robert Perkis
> Colin Fairbrotherwww.LottoPoster.com PKB
Even a worm learns to avoid a hot wire, Colin not as smart.
btw: That's not rain on your shoes Mr. Piss Wind. LOL
Robert
Nick UK
"Colin Fairbrother" aka 'Professor Pisspot' wrote..
> The biggest ignoramus in the history of Lotto analysis misinformation,
> Robert Perkis, is at it again.
...........................................................
Tut-tut, Professor!
Not taking sides here but there is yet another example of Sheriff Perkis'
strange calculating methods when he once said here (reference a 6/49 lottery
draw) something to the effect of..
'buy one ticket and the odds against you are 14 million-to-one'.
'buy two tickets and the odds against you are reduced by 50%'!
And I do recall trying to reason with the Sheriff by replying..
Nah!..
In order to reduce the mathematical odds by 25% the player would have to buy
25% of the combinations ( that is 3.5 million unique combinations).
In order to reduce the mathematical odds by 50% the player would have to buy
50% of the combinations ( that is 7 million unique combinations).
In order to reduce the mathematical odds by 75% the player would have to buy
75% of the combinations ( that is 10.5 million unique combinations).
The Sheriff completely ignored my reply and he *still* maintains that buying
*two* tickets in a 6/49 draw reduces the 14m-to-one odds against the player
by a whopping 50%! When in reality, buying two tickets simply gives the
player *two* chances in 14m of hitting on any dividend, including the
'biggo-sixo'!
Sheriff Perkis occasionally ends his posts with the (hoss) rider..
"I could be right, or I could be right!"
Toowit (in this instance) I reply..
Sheriff: you could be wrong, and you *are* wrong!
Colin Fairbrother
abuse. The plain and simple fact is I know from past analysis you are
wrong. If I have to prove you wrong for the Florida 6/53 game point by
point then so be it. It all goes towards showing you up as more than a
delusional numerologist and in fact as a filthy liar. (The difference
between a filthy liar and a clean liar is a matter of etiquette - one
uses a tissue to clean their nose and the other picks away with a
finger.)
Your first set of lies in this thread November 22, 2009 -
"If these are new machines and ballsets, it's an excellent opportunity
to see if two thirds of each of the hot, average and cold as
previously ranked numbers change places over the next six months as
I've found they do in the Florida Lotto when the old ballsets are
destroyed and replaced with new."
1 This assumes there is an influence on the random number generation
when previous numbers are given a time stamp. You have been previously
challenged to produce any evidence of this for any Lotto game and in
particular for the simplest case of a 6/7 Lotto game. Numbers for a
6/7 Lotto game can be imported into Excel for your analysis (this is
assuming you have progressed to using Excel at the most basic level)
by following the instructions here: -
http://groups.google.com/group/lottogroup/web/online-lotto-random-number-generator-rng
2 Where may we look at your analysis data that shows that 66.6% of
the integers when grouped by "hot, average and cold" on the basis of
occurrence "change places over the next six months" which according to
you correlates to a ballset change. Where also is your comparative
data with a no ballset change, computer generated numbers using the
link previously given, another 6/53 Lotto game? Could it be there is
nothing out of the ordinary and hence your filthy liar status.
Your next set of lies in this thread to consider dated November 23,
2009: -
"Only for sorting the numbers into groups to pull numbers from. Take
the Florida 6/53 as an example. If you sort the numbers into roughly
even groups of hot, average and cold and use two numbers from each in
building all possible combinations, you will be correct roughly 50% of
the time and the odds drop from roughly 1 in 23 million to 1 in 3
million."
1 How do you get this even grouping of "hot, average and cold". I am
asking as an expert in this area with my own program for considering
and calculating all the canvassed possibilities plus a few more of my
own. You on the other hand have no programming experience , no
mathematical ability, completely hopeless at following logical thought
and must use a mish mash of trivial programs from mostly nutcase
authors (I'm being kind!). How many draws do you consider for integer
occurrence?
2 Let's say you manage to get two groups of 18 and one of 17 and
from each you take 2 integers on some undeclared basis. You are
talking about playing some 136 X 153 X 153 = 3,183,624 combinations of
6 integers. Assuming you don't play such a set of numbers personally,
where is your analysis of playing this set repeatedly and not getting
the expected 1 in 7 draws with the correct Six but rather 1 in 2 or
"50% of the time"?
3 How do the "odds drop from 1 in 23 million to 1 in 3 million"?
Playing 1 line you have odds of 1 in 23 million. Playing 3,183,624
lines you have an odds ratio of 1 in 7. Playing 11,478,740 lines you
have an odds ratio of 1 in 2 but you could well go 10 draws and still
not win. For each and every draw your chances of getting 6 integers
correct are (6/53 x 5/52 x 4/51 x 3/50 x 2/49 x 1/48) or 1/22,957,480
or roughly 1 in 23,000,000. Being such a ball conscious person how
could you not see there are 53 balls to start with each and every
draw?
3 The odds for getting 3 integers correct in the Florida 6/53
standard game are 1 in 70.29. So if you played 35 random selection
lines costing $35.00 you should average out to a Three win paying
$5.00 about every second draw. Show us how you improve on this.
Colin Fairbrother
www.LottoPoster.com
Robert Perkis
Colin Fairbrother wrote:
>
> You should know by now, Robert Perkis, that I am not deterred by
> abuse. The plain and simple fact is I know from past analysis you are
> wrong. If I have to prove you wrong for the Florida 6/53 game point by
> point then so be it. It all goes towards showing you up as more than a
> delusional numerologist and in fact as a filthy liar. (The difference
> between a filthy liar and a clean liar is a matter of etiquette - one
> uses a tissue to clean their nose and the other picks away with a
> finger.)
So all nose pickers are liars or all liars are nose pickers?
You would make an interesting jury member.
>
> Your first set of lies in this thread November 22, 2009 -
> "If these are new machines and ballsets, it's an excellent opportunity
> to see if two thirds of each of the hot, average and cold as
> previously ranked numbers change places over the next six months as
> I've found they do in the Florida Lotto when the old ballsets are
> destroyed and replaced with new."
I suggested a chance to experiment, I am such a liar.
>
> 1 This assumes there is an influence on the random number generation
> when previous numbers are given a time stamp. You have been previously
> challenged to produce any evidence of this for any Lotto game and in
> particular for the simplest case of a 6/7 Lotto game. Numbers for a
> 6/7 Lotto game can be imported into Excel for your analysis (this is
> assuming you have progressed to using Excel at the most basic level)
> by following the instructions here: -
> http://groups.google.com/group/lottogroup/web/online-lotto-random-number-generator-rng
It assumes no such thing, except you want it to so badly.
Either something has happened in the past or it has not.
Evidence of some other game (made up or real) is other
evidence, not part of the discussion except you want it
to be.
>
> 2 Where may we look at your analysis data that shows that 66.6% of
> the integers when grouped by "hot, average and cold" on the basis of
> occurrence "change places over the next six months" which according to
> you correlates to a ballset change. Where also is your comparative
> data with a no ballset change, computer generated numbers using the
> link previously given, another 6/53 Lotto game? Could it be there is
> nothing out of the ordinary and hence your filthy liar status.
Florida changes out the Pick-6 ballsets every two years
and went from 6/49 to 6/53. The data is limited to this
size blocks. The comparative data is the previous half
of the two years.
I have no idea why you say it must be out of the ordinary,
to be useful when in fact it would be perfectly natural for
the same effect to occur by any organic process of random
number generation. Frankly I don't believe anything you
post having seen you hoisted for the liar you are.
>
> Your next set of lies in this thread to consider dated November 23,
> 2009: -
> "Only for sorting the numbers into groups to pull numbers from. Take
> the Florida 6/53 as an example. If you sort the numbers into roughly
> even groups of hot, average and cold and use two numbers from each in
> building all possible combinations, you will be correct roughly 50% of
> the time and the odds drop from roughly 1 in 23 million to 1 in 3
> million."
>
> 1 How do you get this even grouping of "hot, average and cold". I am
> asking as an expert in this area with my own program for considering
> and calculating all the canvassed possibilities plus a few more of my
> own. You on the other hand have no programming experience , no
> mathematical ability, completely hopeless at following logical thought
> and must use a mish mash of trivial programs from mostly nutcase
> authors (I'm being kind!). How many draws do you consider for integer
> occurrence?
For the tests I conducted above I started with two years of
previous data to determine the HAC comparison set for the
first draw's set of numbers from the new ballsets. I then
moved ahead one draw at a time and checked the next draw
and so on. I looked at the resulting data as a whole and
broken into quarters of the year.
For draw to draw "prediction" for 6/53 I use 106 previous
draws to sort into HAC based on draw occurrence sorted from
low to high within each frequency or number of hits.
For example: If 19, 41, 8, and 45 have each hit 16 times
their positions in the ranking would be . . .
8
19
41
45
I take the first 18 as "hot" the second 18 as "average" and
the final 17 as "cold".
>
> 2 Let's say you manage to get two groups of 18 and one of 17 and
> from each you take 2 integers on some undeclared basis. You are
> talking about playing some 136 X 153 X 153 = 3,183,624 combinations of
> 6 integers. Assuming you don't play such a set of numbers personally,
> where is your analysis of playing this set repeatedly and not getting
> the expected 1 in 7 draws with the correct Six but rather 1 in 2 or
> "50% of the time"?
Not exactly. It is my first filter, that's all. 3,183,624
combinations will always pass the first filter.
>
> 3 How do the "odds drop from 1 in 23 million to 1 in 3 million"?
> Playing 1 line you have odds of 1 in 23 million. Playing 3,183,624
> lines you have an odds ratio of 1 in 7. Playing 11,478,740 lines you
> have an odds ratio of 1 in 2 but you could well go 10 draws and still
> not win. For each and every draw your chances of getting 6 integers
> correct are (6/53 x 5/52 x 4/51 x 3/50 x 2/49 x 1/48) or 1/22,957,480
> or roughly 1 in 23,000,000. Being such a ball conscious person how
> could you not see there are 53 balls to start with each and every
> draw?
When my first filter proves correct and a line is
played from the resulting 3,183,624 combinations
were my odds of winning not 1 in 3,183,624?
>
> 3 The odds for getting 3 integers correct in the Florida 6/53
> standard game are 1 in 70.29. So if you played 35 random selection
> lines costing $35.00 you should average out to a Three win paying
> $5.00 about every second draw. Show us how you improve on this.
I can improve my odds in some draws as seen above by
giving up my chance to win in other draws. Overall
nothing has changed, they average out, but it can not
be denied a 1 in 3,183,624 chance is better than a 1
in 22,957,480. If you want to think this make me a
liar, I couldn't care less.
Robert Perkis
http://www.lotto-logix.com
>
> Colin Fairbrother
> www.LottoPoster.com
Robert Perkis
You seem to have forgotten my pointing out at the time
some of the lotteries that sell two tickets for a dollar
show the odds per dollar as half the actual. I've never
laid claim to be anything but a lotto enthusiast, while the
lotteries hire actual professors to calculate their odds.
How quickly we forget. ;-) Robert
Virgin Media
RGLs Sheriff 'Buffalo Bob' Perkis wrote..
>
> You seem to have forgotten my pointing out at the time
> some of the lotteries that sell two tickets for a dollar
> show the odds per dollar as half the actual.
Yes: half the actual dollar, not half the actual odds.
> I've never laid claim to be anything but a lotto enthusiast..
Yep: looking back, I can't argue with that.
> ..while the lotteries hire actual professors to calculate their odds.
Hmmmm: I wonder if RGLs 'Professor Pisspot' works for any lottery?
> How quickly we forget. ;-)
> Robert.
Hmmmm: you reckon?
I've never forgotten RGL subscriber Harry 'Big Lie Guy' and his false
accusation of criminal activity, against me.
Also..
I've never forgotten your unwillingness/inability to deal with it by
requesting evidence or failing that, a complete withdrawal of the
allegation, together with an apology.
How quickly 'some of us' forget!
Nick UK
"Virgin Media" <yada...@gmail.com> wrote..
Apologies for the 'Virgin Media' tag.
The new and much heralded 'Windows 7' operating system has discarded
'Outlook Express' as the default mail handler/newsreader and has introduced
'Windows Mail' which (IMO) is a backward step!
You know, in Windows Mail, there isn't even a fkn 'send' button to click on.
Windows Mail now refers to the simple term 'send' as 'synchronise! So, to
send, you have to synchronise and what is being sent, is anybody's guess!
FFS!
As per usual, Microsludge introduces far too many and totally unnecessary
changes to a perfectly good and well tested mail handler in Outlook or
Outlook Express.
It's now back to 'Google Mail' for me and 'Windows Mail' can get stuffed!
Configuring my 'Nick UK' RGL posts is more difficult than usual, hence the
'Virgin Media' tag in my previous post in this thread.
How niggling!.. Niggle!
Nick UK.
bigeyeguy
"Nick UK" <lotto_y...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:N1GOm.36601$Qc5....@newsfe29.ams2...
BUY 2 TICKETS AND YOU "HALVE THE ODDS",,,,,, ABSOLUTE.
6,991,908 TO 1 CERTAIN
Buy 10 tickets and the odds are reduced to 1,398,381.6
Buy 1000 tickets and the odds are reduced to 139,838.16
BUY 6,991,908 TICKETS, HALF, EACH DRAW AND YOU HAVE A
JACKPOT EVERY OTHER DRAW ODDS REDUCED BY 7,000,000 to 1
***********************************************************
BUY 6,991,908 TICKETS WITH THE, *MY*, ATHENS SYSTEM AND YOU
MAY HAVE 14 JACKPOTS EVERY DRAW IF YOU WAIT FOR ROLL0VERS!
Harry.
The guy who knows more than the easy peasy stuff
nigel
> As per usual, Microsludge introduces far too many and totally unnecessary
> changes to a perfectly good
*splutter*
> and well tested
*choke*
> mail handler in Outlook or Outlook Express.
>
> How niggling!.. Niggle!
>
> Nick UK.
>
Evil Nigel
Colin Fairbrother
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm tempted to let your reply speak for itself. Generally, in a
newsgroup like this when posting something, I have in mind a section
of the readership that has a reasonable understanding of logic,
mathematics and data analysis. The errors in your "thinking" are so
glaring as to be unbelievable that they could be put seriously.
Playing a single line in the 6/53 Lotto game covers just 1 of the
22,957,480 possibilities. The line you play does not matter whether it
be 1 2 3 4 5 6 or 48 49 50 51 52 53. If you play 3,183,624 lines then
you have covered that many of the possibilities - no more, no less and
on average you will get the winning Six 1 in 7 times. In terms of
winning first prize this cannot be improved on if your lines are
unique.
Just as when flipping a coin it is possible to have a sequence of 9
heads or 9 tails, applying roughly the same factor you could have a
run of 32 draws playing 3,183,624 lines per draw without a win after
forking out some $100,000,000.
Robert Perkis wrote November 24, 2009, "When my first filter proves
correct and a line is played from the resulting 3,183,624 combinations
were my odds of winning not 1 in 3,183,624? ... I can improve my odds
in some draws as seen above by giving up my chance to win in other
draws. Overall nothing has changed, they average out, but it can not
be denied a 1 in 3,183,624 chance is better than a 1
in 22,957,480. If you want to think this make me a liar, I couldn't
care less."
The odds have not changed based on your choice of the 3,183,624 lines
after doing some calculations on the history of the draws. That you
should still believe this proves that in some 14 years you have learnt
nothing as this error in logic was pointed out to you in this group in
1995 by John Griffin. As long as the 3,183,624 lines are unique then
the odds are the same for each draw. Basically what this means is that
if you divide the 22,957,480 possibilities into roughly 7 groups with
the same representation of the integers then over a reasonable number
of draws you will have close to the same total of winning Sixes in
each group.
You do not improve nor diminish your chances of winning by the choice
of the 3,183,624 lines - to state otherwise makes you a liar.
Certainly, a 1 in 3,183,624 chance is better than a 1 in 22.957,480
and the way you get that odds ratio is to play 7 or 8 lines! You could
get the winning Six in the next draw or not have any luck in the next
half a million years.
Colin Fairbrother
www.LottoPoster.com
Robert Perkis
Nick: If it helps I apologize for not having the backbone
to get into "it" with you guys. I have never for a moment
thought you banked your own bets by your members. As you
may recall, your response was so beyond the accepted norm
that it canceled out all typical approaches to dealing with
the issue.
Harry: I do you have any proof? If so please post it. If
not the absence of evidence will be evidence of absence.
Robert Perkis
Robert Perkis
As you say, we can get the same odds (sorry Nick) by playing 7
or 8 lines.
And yes, due to the perverse nature of the lottery this strategy
may prove effective in the next draw or never over half a million
years.
Problem is, you've gone ahead and mistaken the first step for the
last.
Just as 3/3 is the most common outcome of Pick-6 odd/even,
low/high 2/2/2 is the most common expected outcome of three
even groups.
Sure, you are free to include some wiggle room, 2/3/1 etc. after a
cluster of 2/2/2 we're just trying to establish a foundation to
build upon.
Let's go with your estimate of 1 in 7 times 2/2/2 will prove to be
the correct choice.
This means the winning six are among the 3,183,624 lines that have
passed our first filter roughly one time in seven tries.
Now here's where it gets tricky . . . We select our next filter.
Are you with me now? We select a series of filters until we get
down to the budget be it 100 lines or 7 or 8 lines or 1 line.
What we've done is establish a path that must guarantee a jackpot
when all our choices prove correct.
The odds haven't changed, they can't change, it's a closed number
universe. Your odds of winning using this method are exactly the
same as the odds of buying the same number of unique quick picks.
So why go to all the trouble? The answer is this method allows
you to make the choices that determine whether you win or lose.
Remember, you only have to be entirely correct once and you are
guaranteed to win a jackpot. You don't have to be able to repeat
the experiment every time, (though it works in reverse to show
what you should have done). It's a one off shot each time.
You can recommend people do nothing to help themselves except
for making unique combinations and I will recommend my method
and Mike can recommend his groups of 11 numbers as they are all
equally valid mathematically.
The difference is some people like to include their brain as a
factor in the outcome of events, the rest can buy quick picks.
Robert Perkis
http://www.lotto-logix.com
Colin Fairbrother
Colin Fairbrother
bigeyeguy
Robert only saw this this morning and the only thing I remember is
that there was a conversation here around a few years ago between
Nicko and Parcels about a rise in his, Nicko's charges to his syndicate
members in which Nicko said with smirk as I read it where one of
his members said," A pound a week thats a lot" and then they agreed
�5 pound a month and as Nicko said, "the silly bugger agreed more than
a pound a week" with a small ha ha hence the smirk interpretation of mine.
This guy has had arguments over his syndicate for about 12 years or so
and all were his own fault, nobody even cares really. Of couse there has
been a bit of pisstaking as he is the perfect target for it being so serious
about things.
You really should bar the guy forever as what with his abhorrent web site
and his stupid derogatory nick names sprayed around to all and sundry
the guy is becoming paronoic and may flip at any time. He is no friend
of this site that is for sure, even threatening to bring it to an end a
couple
of times.
He has talked of stalking my retirement apartment building and my pub
as he put it, never been there for around 9 years or so, once the landlord
raised his Guiness price by 50p or 80c!
HE IS A COMPLETE NO NO AND HAS PUT VERY LITTLE
LOTTERY RELATED INTO THIS NEWS GROUP. HE ONLY
WANTS TO FIGHT OR BE OBNOXIOUS.
Do you know that something told me to put these few missives here
yesterday and I know that I am Extra Sensory Perceptional to a
marked degree as several strange events have confirmed this over this
last two years or so, it may be that you are thinking of barring me eh?
Would be a traversty
Harry
Robert Perkis
If I had moderator powers and could ban people for real
things would be different. However, I am always the first
to forgive and forget so it would be a revolving door.
You would have been banned for costing us our last official
lottery expert though you couldn't have known he'd leave as
a result of your posts, he didn't feel he could respond and
maintain an ethical standing.
One should always apologize right away, better then losing
a friend over what will later be remembered as something
stupid.
Robert
nigel
> I have a new system which had been developing promisingly and I was
> half-expecting it to ease past 3SDs this weekend, but the results of its
> forecasts for Saturday's UK lottery have completely screwed that.
Doubly screwed.
The system ranks the drawn numbers against its predictions. For random
predictions, the average sum of rankings should approach 150 over time.
Statistically I asked the probability of the results of my system coming
from a population with mean 150. One of the quantities involved in the
calculation is the sample standard deviation of the sums of rankings -
the smaller the standard deviation, the more confidence you have in the
average.
So when Saturday produced really shitty results, not only did it take
the average sum of rankings closer to 150, it also increased the
standard deviation of those sums of rankings.
As I said, doubly screwed.
It does make me wonder about the legitimacy of the statistical test
(which I found in a statistics textbook) when one 'bad' result can have
such a seemingly disproportionate effect.
Evil Nigel
nigel
> our last official lottery expert
Okay, I'll bite.
What is an 'official lottery expert' and who was it?
Evil Nigel
Colin Fairbrother
And from a pseudo moderator impersonator no less - I'll bite too!
Colin
nigel
> Well, different, anyway. The new machine they used today (new Arthur)
> looked substantially different to the old machines. I think they're
> using new balls too.
The wobbly cardboard pedestal with the dummy red button has been
replaced by a more solid pedestal with a thingy which lights up. AFAIK
it still doesn't start the draw though.
> (And it's a rollover on Wednesday btw, estimated jackpot �7 million)
On the TV prog they quoted the estimated jackpot as �7.7 million. The
results on the Camelot website show it as �6.8 million, shared by 8
people (hurray for birthday numbers).
I wonder why their estimates are so poor.
And in the business section of my scummy tabloid today, they reckon
Camelot are on course to announce bumper profits.
(They don't mention it's because Camelot have decimated service levels
to fatten up the figures for a selloff.)
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
Scotland. Returned and found a few very nasty posts that will (when I have
the time) be responded to.
In the meantime, this one just caught my eye..
Sheriff 'Buffalo Bob' Perkis reminded RGLs false-accusing, racist shitbag
'Big Lie Guy'..
>
> You would have been banned for costing us our last official
> lottery expert though you couldn't have known he'd leave as
> a result of your posts, he didn't feel he could respond and
> maintain an ethical standing.
>
Then 'Evil Nigel' (best pronounced 'Niggle') bit the bullet, saying..
>>
>> Okay, I'll bite.
>>
>> What is an 'official lottery expert' and who was it?
>>
>> Evil Nigel
>
> And the self-acclaimed 'pseudo moderator impersonator' Colin Fairbrother
> (aka Professor Pisspot) must have been even hungrier for enlightenment,
> when he snapped..
>
>> I'll bite too!
.............................................................................................................................
Hmmmm: my guess is that *Joe Roberts* is the 'lottery expert' that Buffalo
Bob is referring too and why he didn't say so in his post, is a mystery to
me!
Indeed, Joe Roberts was the best, most informed, kindest and most tolerant
subscriber this ng has ever had.. by a mile! Just a pity Joe decided to
ditch RGL some 3 or 4 (or more) years ago.
However, the reason why Joe unsubscribed from RGL is totally understandable
when I (and others here) recall some of the derogatory posts he received and
had to endure from the false-accusing, racist shitbag.. 'Big Lie Guy' who at
the time, posted here as 'Harry Scott'.
Look back in the Usenet/Google archives and *see* the evidence, which
(incidentally) the racist shitbag has *never* produced in all the years that
he has incessantly accused all and sundry involved in the Lottery business,
of illegal and/or criminal activity! During many years subscribing here,
the 'Big Lie Guy' has *never* been known to say a good or kind word in this
forum, about any subject or about any subscriber!
Goodness, decency and honesty (in the form of Joe Roberts) has left RGL!
Evil, racism, arrogance, filth and bitterness (in the form of 'Big Lie Guy')
remains!
gARY
> Just got back from my trip to the rain sodden northern England and southern
> Evil, racism, arrogance, filth and bitterness (in the form of 'Big Lie Guy')
> remains!
But, this is exactly what YOU do Nick!
Do you not see yourself here?
RGL is getting hard work!!
f
PS, the ONLY reason it is "f" and not "g" is it is less work on my
left-hand moving over the keyboard, at this rate it will be "a" or "z"
v-soon.
nigel
> f
>
> PS, the ONLY reason it is "f" and not "g" is it is less work on my
> left-hand moving over the keyboard, at this rate it will be "a" or "z"
> v-soon.
So you're a touched-type, pissed rather than a touch typist :)
Evil Nigel
bigeyeguy
"nigel" <use...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Auadnfj8ddQfVJDW...@brightview.co.uk...
> nigel wrote:
>
>> Well, different, anyway. The new machine they used today (new Arthur)
>> looked substantially different to the old machines. I think they're using
>> new balls too.
>
> The wobbly cardboard pedestal with the dummy red button has been replaced
> by a more solid pedestal with a thingy which lights up. AFAIK it still
> doesn't start the draw though.
>
>> (And it's a rollover on Wednesday btw, estimated jackpot �7 million)
>
> On the TV prog they quoted the estimated jackpot as �7.7 million. The
> results on the Camelot website show it as �6.8 million, shared by 8 people
> (hurray for birthday numbers).
>
> I wonder why their estimates are so poor.
Lots of birthday numbers after first estimate gives first bite to the
10 prizes overly high number of prizes reduces all other prizes 'cluding JP?
>
> And in the business section of my scummy tabloid today, they reckon
> Camelot are on course to announce bumper profits.
> (They don't mention it's because Camelot have decimated service levels to
> fatten up the figures for a selloff.)
>
> Evil Nigel
>
Harry.
bigeyeguy
"Nick UK" <yada...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:M9%Pm.31546$9h4....@newsfe08.ams2...
> Just got back from my trip to the rain sodden northern England
even the weather is affected by me being here in Northern England!
and southern
> Scotland. Returned and found a few very nasty posts that will (when I have
> the time) be responded to.
Time to answer that is quite a while now!
VERY Nasty because you CANNOT ANSWER, like reply to thread
which contains my comment about Nigel and Thicko's" complete load of
bollocks?
OR answer my post which settled the odds of doubled stake once and for
all I hope.
YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG! Not Robert
>
> In the meantime, this one just caught my eye..
>
> Sheriff 'Buffalo Bob' Perkis reminded RGLs false-accusing, racist shitbag
> 'Big Lie Guy'..
>>
>> You would have been banned for costing us our last official
>> lottery expert though you couldn't have known he'd leave as
>> a result of your posts, he didn't feel he could respond and
>> maintain an ethical standing.
>>
> Then 'Evil Nigel' (best pronounced 'Niggle') bit the bullet, saying..
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll bite.
>>>
>>> What is an 'official lottery expert' and who was it?
>>>
>>> Evil Nigel
>>
>> And the self-acclaimed 'pseudo moderator impersonator' Colin Fairbrother
>> (aka Professor Pisspot) must have been even hungrier for enlightenment,
>> when he snapped..
>>
>>> I'll bite too!
> .............................................................................................................................
>
> Hmmmm: my guess is that *Joe Roberts* is the 'lottery expert' that Buffalo
> Bob is referring too and why he didn't say so in his post, is a mystery to
> me!
>
> Indeed, Joe Roberts was the best, most informed, kindest and most
> tolerant subscriber this ng has ever had.. by a mile! Just a pity Joe
> decided to ditch RGL some 3 or 4 (or more) years ago
Left of his own accord, finally crushed and completely creased when I
threw the ATHENS system at him, and no reply except to say, "it isn't all
the numbers, only 48", weak as piss!
One of the original Dinosaurs, 'cluding Royce Penny, Griffin among others
but obsolete nevertheless.
Collects lottery winning lines and his im is to prove my ATHENS system
wrong, impossible.
>
> However, the reason why Joe unsubscribed from RGL is totally
> understandable when I (and others here) recall some of the derogatory
> posts he received and had to endure from the false-accusing, racist
> shitbag.. 'Big Lie Guy' who at the time, posted here as 'Harry Scott'.
>
> Look back in the Usenet/Google archives and *see* the evidence, which
> (incidentally) the racist shitbag has *never* produced in all the years
> that he has incessantly accused all and sundry involved in the Lottery
> business, of illegal and/or criminal activity! During many years
> subscribing here, the 'Big Lie Guy' has *never* been known to say a good
> or kind word in this forum, about any subject or about any subscriber!
>
> Goodness, decency and honesty (in the form of Joe Roberts) has left RGL!
> Evil, racism, arrogance, filth and bitterness (in the form of 'Big Lie
> Guy') remains!
Those descriptions all fit you perfectly, evil, arrogance, filth, and
bitterness, yes,
certainly, at it's worst!
Happy Harry.
Robert Perkis
Therein lies the problem. The man never showed anything but
respect to you. Unlike you he has a business to run based in
part on his reputation so the harm you can do to him in a forum
like this goes beyond what most of us can do to each other.
The group needs experienced people willing to talk lotto, be
they dinosaurs, or whatever. Each loss diminishes us all as
a valuable resource to lottery players.
Now you're reduced to calling on the colin creature for help,
see how that works out for you.
Robert
nigel
>
> Therein lies the problem. The man never showed anything but
> respect to you. Unlike you he has a business to run based in
> part on his reputation so the harm you can do to him in a forum
> like this goes beyond what most of us can do to each other.
>
Speaking from experience, Joe's a very competent VB/Excel programmer and
I'm sure he could have zapped off some VB to fulfill Harry's needs very
quickly.
Since Harry's needs are quite simple and he's not familiar with
VB/Excel, I think it's reasonable to sacrifice size for simplicity and I
would have met his requirements using Excel's built-in functions.
Evil Nigel
Nick UK
>
> RGL is getting hard work!!
> f
>
> PS, the ONLY reason it is "f" and not "g" is it is less work on my
> left-hand moving over the keyboard, at this rate it will be "a" or "z"
> v-soon.
>
Yet more unintelligible claptrap from gARY-the-gRASS!
If anyone here can throw some light upon whatever it is this A-hole is
gibbering on about, then please be good enough to let me know.
In the meantime.. gARY-the-gRASS: why don't you crawl back into the
woodwork!
gARY
Nope, just fed up with the manual work/effort here in RGL for very
little progress on the lotto front.
However, on a good RGL day, I do stereotyping ya know!
Best,
a
gARY
> gARY-the-gRASS gibbered..
>
> > RGL is getting hard work!!
> > f
>
> > PS, the ONLY reason it is "f" and not "g" is it is less work on my
> > left-hand moving over the keyboard, at this rate it will be "a" or "z"
> > v-soon.
>
>
> Yet more unintelligible claptrap from gARY-the-gRASS!
>
> If anyone here can throw some light upon whatever it is this A-hole is
> gibbering on about, then please be good enough to let me know.
>
> In the meantime.. gARY-the-gRASS: why don't you crawl back into the
> woodwork!
I know you’re intelligent enough to know I’m right (i.e. bang on!) as
always NickUK.
Will you deny this fact?
a
Jack Ricci
"bigeyeguy" <bigey...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:HPmdnVC1X8bVWZbW...@bt.com...
Looks and sounds good on paper, and I even agree to most of the
reasoning...so, how many jackpots have you won so far? Have you at least
made back more than you spent so far?
LottoHackJack