Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels

[Colin Fairbrother]

We are used to Professors of Mathematics being called upon to pour
scorn on various gambling schemes that purport to consistently produce
results better than the odds but Professor Iliya Bluskov of British
Caledonia University is definitely the odd Doctor out.

In my mail today I received The Yellow Envelope containing a multitude
of glossy flyers including one with a bespeckled, bald headed, brown
sleeveless jumper clad picture of a tight lipped, benignly smiling,
Professor Iliya Bluskov in his best academic pose headed, "What's the
secret to playing the lottery?". Such a title alone broadcasting a
"secret" should to circumspect readers be a red flag to a con-artist
trick to follow and they would not be disappointed.

In the usual concede and outrageously claim, spiel style we read,
"While there's no way to guarantee a first division win, there is
certainly a way to play smarter and more efficiently while you're
going for that major prize.". We then read, "As a lottery enthusiast
and respected Professor of Mathematics, Dr. Bluskov has spent over ten
years of study in the field of 'Combinatorics' to develop his
groundbreaking lottery systems.".

Those familiar with Lotto systems would know that over 25 years ago
Wheels with Guarantees were being promoted from the earliest games of
Lotto where players could pick a lesser set of the integers from the
set used in the game, usually associated with objects like ping-pong
balls, and in for example the classic Pool 49 and Pick 6 game choose
say 7 integers which they liked or thought more likely to succeed and
play the 7 possible combinations of 6 integers. Now, here is the
crunch con and guarantee - if the 6 main integers drawn are in the 7
integers picked then the player wins or shares first prize. But the
"good" Professor says, " ... there's no way to guarantee a first
division win ...". How is this possible? Only by suspending rational
thinking can first prize be excluded from the "guarantee" but still
allowed for the lesser prizes. Some with a Socratic bent would say
this is contradictory or at the very least anomalous and to use an
often unrealised mathematical term which the Professor is fond of
using, definitely not "nice".

So, if using the integers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in a 6/49 Lotto game you
will be guaranteed of a three match prize simply by playing one line 1
2 3 4 5 6 if the six integers drawn are in those 7 integers picked.
Some would categorise this not so much as a guarantee as a corollary
as before the draw there is no guarantee for a three match win and
indeed you would have to play a minimum of 163 lines using all the
available 49 integers to be guaranteed of such a win. (Professor Iliya
Bluskov believes it can be done in around 87 lines - but that's
another story.)

So much for guarantees - let's look at the " ... groundbreaking
lottery systems.". These structured sets or Covers or Wheels have been
around a lot longer than Professor Iliya Bluskov and indeed
practically all the likely ones that Lotto players who misguidedly
think they can predict the more likely integers in the next draw,
would use ie say 77 or less lines are available online and attributed
to authors other than Bluskov for being the first to achieve the
record minimum set of lines for the guarantee for the relevant Pool
and Pick.

Where the Prize Guarantee is the same as the Match see: -
http://www.ccrwest.org/cover.html

Where the Prize Guarantee is different to the Match see: -
http://www.weefs-lottosysteme.de/systeme,en.htm

Relevant articles that may be of interest are: -

http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

Colin Fairbrother

[rvie...@gmail.com]

-This is nothing more than another guru selling his own plan to suckers who are idiotic enough to fall for it! So...gun down everyone else's "secret sauce" to riches to promote your own for profit. A joke. Prove what you are claiming actually works, instead of shooting down others who are no better than this. A ploy to rip off your money folks! Move on if you're smart.

[michae...@gmail.com]

In your First example I agree it is impossible to win 6 numbers if 7 of the 6 are chosen. To be honest you have 5 winning numbers and not 3 winning numbers.

It is very complicated t work out such stuff even more so understand it.A computer program to compare such systems against past lottery histories will prove more useful.

[Colin Fairbrother]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:35:53 PM UTC+11, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> In your First example I agree it is impossible to win 6 numbers if 7 of the 6 are chosen. To be honest you have 5 winning numbers and not 3 winning numbers.
>
>
>
> It is very complicated t work out such stuff even more so understand it.A computer program to compare such systems against past lottery histories will prove more useful.

Such a program I wrote around 2000 and have extensively published results from since 2004.

Your first paragraph I find incomprehensible especially " ... if 7 of the 6 are chosen." If you want to quote me provide the paragraph or a link.

It may be complicated for you to analyse Lotto numbers but after some 15 years I am understatedly au fait with the subject.

If you want to be taken seriously in this newsgroup use your real name, which will be checked. Previously in this thread someone purporting to be Iliya Bluskov posted and after a quick check I concluded it was bogus and didn't reply. I notice it has now been removed. Some of the idiots in this newsgroup derive pleasure from inpersonating others or pretending they are new.

"To be honest" I'm dubious about your first post in RGL and if your second post is as bad as your first, it will be ignored.

http://www.ColinFairbrother.com
http://www.LottoPoster.com
http://www.LottoToWin.com

Colin Fairbrother

[roguelea...@gmail.com]

He isn't the con artists, the company/group of people who he sold/allowed permission to use his material to create such a book are.

He did his research in these kind of mathematics and produced a book written BY HIM that explained the mathematics behind the lottery and those kind of wheeling systems.

Within he provided methods to better your chances of winning by making more efficient use of the numbers you pick for the lottery pool using math.

In a quote from him: "There is no guaranteed way to win the lottery. The book I had written would give you a better chance of winning, but not necessarily winning big. For example, just picking favorites and random numbers you might win one every 400 times or less. With my method you might win one every 150 times. You're winning more often but you're still losing money. Unless by chance you get a jackpot which my method does not guarantee.

The website promoting the book, it's content, the video and the book itself I have no control over. It's not what I wrote, it's simplified to a point that [non-math inclined] people can easily use what I developed to better their chances. Unfortunately it makes false promises but that's just marketing."

[Colin Fairbrother]

*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Give me one example from the Covers he promotes that gives wins more often than either Random Selections or my sets with Unique Paying Subsets, all the integers included for the particular Lotto game and coverage near maximum or optimum.

Beforehand you might want to check out my comparison table for the 6/49 Lotto game at: -
LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

Colin Fairbrother

[mayark...@gmail.com]

By proving this or that, what do you try to achieve?


In any case, professor makes more money than you and me ever imagined :).

[nigel]

mayark...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> In any case, professor makes more money than you and me ever imagined :).
>

If you want a laugh on a dreary November day, you might want to read this:

http://www.lottocombosystem.com/exit1.htm

"
Amazing Secret Formula Discovered By the �Lottery Godfather� (Professor
Bluskov), which GUARANTEES at LEAST ONE WINNER This Week, Improves Your
Odds By 7,540%, Eliminates Luck From Your Lottery Game� & Brings You
More Money Than YOU CAN SPEND�
WITH JUST ONE CLICK OF A BUTTON.
"

:)

Evil Nigel

[michae...@gmail.com]

I thought I read that article wrong somewhere. How can you play 7 numbers when you can only play 6? Thats what i mean. Also this is my real email address.Just cos one email was fake, doesn't mean others who post here are. I dont see your email published!

'So, if using the integers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in a 6/49 Lotto game you

will be guaranteed of a three match prize simply by playing one line 1

2 3 4 5 6 if the six integers drawn are in those 7 integers picked'
I gathered from your 5th paragraph that if 6 of the 7 picked were winning numbers, It is common sense from the lot that when you play one line from any of those 7 numbers,you will have at least 5 winning numbers, and the last number will be a non winning or a winning number. check for yourself!

I am reading your article though though.

[michae...@gmail.com]

And what is RGL?

[nigel]

michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> And what is RGL?

According to the description in Google Groups: "Strategy and news of
lotteries and sweepstakes."

HTH,

Evil Nigel

[michae...@gmail.com]

I see. the one thing i notice about the pick 6 system is they don't include the bonus ball. You pick 6 numbers and a bonus ball. I wonder if someone has devised a system for this? I guess this makes it the '7 of 6' system. like a 4 of 7 in a pick 6 lottery. Anyone get my drift? You could win more. The UK lottery only uses the bonus ball if u have 5 number already picked but the irish and other lottos use the 3+bonus,4+bonus and 5+bonus.

[lot...@telus.net]

Mr. Fairbrother,
A search for my name on Google reveals as a top entry your well written, long, highly critical, and very toxic article on the good old prof Bluskov, who is trying to sell deceiving claims to the public. Well, the good old prof begs to differ. First, let me say I fully agree with the next poster: you are trying to sell your own investigations and insights on the lotteries and ways of playing by diminishing, denigrating, belittling and criticizing other people's insights on the same subject; in fact, you have made a business for yourself based on that! I can accept a criticism from an independent observer, but are you really that independent? You charge people for using your own services at

www.LottoToWin.com

so this gives a very good idea about the motivation behind your post.
Let us see what you are trying to sell there: Big letters title at the top: "Simply the Best Lotto Play Sets to Maximize your Winnings!" Really? How did you define "the best"? What is your proof these are best (according to the definition you do not have...)? Do you claim that one set is better than another, or one set of combinations is better than another in terms of jackpot winning potential (in a fair and unbiased lottery)? Entertain the lottery playing public, please!

Now, I have written several books on lotto systems (wheels). I stand behind every word and sentence in these books. If you have any problems with the content of my books, please comment on that. The only advertising of my books for which I am responsible and have some control over comes unaltered from the content of the books, such as the presentations at

http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/

or at Amazon.com
Some vendors might have their own advertising, which only correspond to their understanding of the subject. I believe that you are fully aware that I know what a complete system is and that it guarantees the Jackpot, right? I also believe that you are aware that I am not responsible for all the advertising of my books or parts of them which are nowadays sold all over the world in various ways, legal and not so legal as well. There are many copyright violators who:

1) use my name to sell pirated content from my books, or pirated copies or files of my book, or software based on the systems in my book, such as one mentioned in this thread,

http://www.lottocombosystem.com/exit1.htm

(I hate to provide them with some extra advertising; I do not know who these people are, and I have never given them authorization/endorsment to sell what they sell; still they use my name and credentials)

I have no control over such occurrences. Todd Northrop's Lottery Post is another example of selling my systems without approval/endorsement. Servers in China or some other difficult to reach jurisdictions do that as well. I do not care at this point; I do have better ways to spend my time than worry about petty thieves. My book sponsors do care; in fact, their lawyers will sooner or later do something about it. I do not really care about your writing either, but at least you did it in a public forum in the form of questioning my own credentials, so I can answer the accusations:-) For me lottery strategies is a passion, a hobby; I have written my books pretty much as a public service, I do not make anything compared to those who actually do sell my products; in any case nothing that can pay for some 30 years of research on the subject; sure I have not invented "the wheel", but I have worked on improving it, and that is what my books are about. What about you? What have you done? Investigated the wheel? Good. Stick to that, please; do not step on the shoulders of people who actually have something to say on the subject. Basically, if your writing is envy inspired, well, there is not much ground for envy either; I make my money elsewhetre; I state that in my books as well.

2) use my name to sell their own products (my name is frequently searched for when it comes to lottery strategies), I guess this is a very familiar category for you.

The books are sold by different vendors, some of these vendors might do their own advertising based on the text from my books or from advertising at Amazon or the Lotbook site http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/

Altering one word or adding/omitting one word in these texts can lead to something incorrect, which must have happened with the said advertising material; the sentence on which you build your essay:

"While there's no way to guarantee a first division win, there is
certainly a way to play smarter and more efficiently while you're
going for that major prize."

is missing just one word and it is definitely not as misleading as you are trying to present it; here is one possible minor correction: add "inexpensive" before "way to guarantee". By the way, why taking the trouble of going to 7 number complete systems to make your point? A single ticket (or a system of one ticket) guarantees the jackpot as well, does not it? (if 6 of your numbers are drawn, of course). But I did not know that, I guess; just discovered it... Anyway, making fun of the good old prof is OK, I do not mind; I noticed I am your favorite writer to criticize at your other websites and this forum as well, not Gail Howard or any other author who produced books abundant with outrageous and plainly false claims. Good choice! You must have your good reasons for that, and I am pleased by the honor. The only problem is: How believable any criticism coming from someone who tries to sell his own product, charging subscriber's fees to generate "Simply the Best Lotto Play Sets to Maximize your Winnings!" and signing every post with his own websites. I will leave the readers to decide for themselves.
Kind regards,
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Dear Professor Iliya Bluskov

Previously there was a reply in this thread purporting to be from you which I didn't believe to be genuine so I didn't reply. I notice it has since been removed from the archives. I take this message as being genuine.

My website http://www.LottoToWin clearly points out that using the numbers provided a marginal improvement can be made over Random Selections in the reasonable short term for the lower prizes and a marked improvement over using most Covers or Wheels.

Like you I have a separate source of income other than the token amount obtained from subscriptions and but for my interest in the subject I could not justify the time I have spent over the years on anything other than an altruistic basis. I have previously stated the website is provided as a public service by me; $5 hardly covers the cost of registration.

I have previously argued in this Newsgroup that with your qualifications you should be treated with respect. However, whatever you advocate should be open to rational scrutiny irrespective of the qualifications you hold. When I push a point of view it is only after considerable testing by myself and research and testing of the opposing point of view. I keep an open mind and am a proud free thinker.

The fundamental bone of contention is in using Wheel or Cover guaranties for a lesser pool than that in which the user plays. What is a Cover or Wheel with a guarantee for say 12 integers is not applicable to say a 6/49 Lotto game and if used will produce a distinguishable inferior result.

I have published a table highlighting these differences at: -
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

As an example a 12 line 4if4 using Pool 9 using old UK Lotto costs and payouts over 1,000 draws has an expected yield of 14% whereas playing essentially a partial Cover, which is what I promote, with no repeat Threes and Coverage reasonably maximized gives a Yield of 23.6%. SHOW ME WHERE MY LOGIC IS FLAWED AND I CAN WALK AWAY FROM THIS FIELD OF INTEREST AND BETTER OCCUPY MY TIME.

Why do I pick on you? The simple answer is you have the brains to understand what I'm saying in a logical way and to know where you are wrong. Whether you realize it or not there is a tone of intellectual arrogence and condescension in your post which is consistent with your self-promotion in your book introductions whereby you urge readers to believe you because of your academic qualifications. Well, as you are no doubt aware in this day and age you can get a Professor to support whatever anyone wants to defend or promote. I understand in the renown Creationism trial there were Professors defending the 7 days in which the Earth was supposed to have been created despite all fossil evidence etc to the contrary.

I admire you for posting in this Newsgroup and hope the resident trolls and nutcases steer clear - but alas I think that is wishful thinking on my part.

Colin Fairbrother

[Colin Fairbrother]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 08:26:58 UTC+11, lot...@telus.net wrote:
>
> >

Clarification of subject for this thread: -
Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels

1 Name is correct

2 "promotes" yes, as in two booklets which I downloaded free from http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/index.html and http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick5book.html. Both these links do not appear to work anymore. Both booklets had an introduction from the author.

3 "deceitful claims" yes, as in implying that a guarantee for a promoted Lotto Cover or Wheel for a Pool less than that used in an actual Lotto game carries over to that game and produces better results than say Random Selections.

4 Proof. There are two established and accepted methods for proving this -

1 A series of trials, say 10 for 1000 plays using generated
Random Selections or Lotto Draw Histories.

2 Calculation of coverage for the Cover or Wheel against all
the possibilities which for say a 6/49 Lotto game is 13,983,816
combinations. A free program to do this is John Rawson's Covermaster.
You can get the details here:

http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ConstructingBestLottoCoversOrWheels.aspx

Colin Fairbrother

[nigel]

<snips for brevity>

lot...@telus.net wrote:

> The
> only advertising of my books for which I am responsible and have some
> control over comes unaltered from the content of the books, such as
> the presentations at
>
> http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/

I've just had a look at your site.

Is http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html designed to discourage
potential purchasers? The style is reminiscent of a three-year-old
playing with a set of coloured crayons for the first time, and not
knowing whether to call yourself Doctor or Professor doesn't inspire
confidence either. It gives off vibes of a scam rather than a serious
book. And yet the testimonials on Amazon are evidence that the books
must contain worthwhile content.

Using the term 'lottery system' for a wheel is incorrect and misleading.
A wheel doesn't select the numbers for you and at best can only be a
small component of a lottery system. The whole section at
http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html#systems is garbage.

Evil Nigel

[Nick UK]

Nigel (best pronounced 'niggle') no doubt niggled a few so-called lottery
'professors' and so-called lottery 'experts' when saying..

> I've just had a look at your site.

> http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/

>
> The style is reminiscent of a three-year-old playing with a set of
> coloured crayons for the first time, and not knowing whether to call
> yourself Doctor or Professor doesn't inspire confidence either. It gives
> off vibes of a scam rather than a serious book. And yet the testimonials
> on Amazon are evidence that the books must contain worthwhile content.
>
> Using the term 'lottery system' for a wheel is incorrect and misleading. A
> wheel doesn't select the numbers for you and at best can only be a small
> component of a lottery system. The whole section at
> http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html#systems is garbage.
>
> Evil Nigel

................................................................

Huh? Wassat you say about the 'Professor' Bluskov's website, Niggle?..

> The style is reminiscent of a three-year-old playing with a set of

> coloured crayons for the first time..

Bw..aaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!

'Professor' Iliya Bluskov states that 'all of the lottery systems presented
in his book have certain guarantees'.

He then goes on to explain what the advantages of using his lottery 'system'
are and what a 'guarantee' means when using those 'systems'.

Rather than repeat what 'Professor' Bluskov drones on and on about on his
multi-million word, information-overloaded Website, I have listed below, a
simplified version of his so-called 'system' - more commonly known as a
lottery 'wheel'.

For example: choosing up to 16 numbers and 'wheeling' those numbers, you
have the following alternatives, that is, depending on how much you want to
spend on your lottery entry-tickets.

Using 'Professor' Bluskov's much heralded (and mysterious) *4 if 4* wheel:
below is a simplified (non-mysterious) example..

If you select 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 numbers and *four* of
your chosen numbers appear in the lottery draw you have entered, then the
number of coms (combinations) you need to play, together with the following
guarantees applicable, are here..

Picking 7 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 5 coms.
Picking 8 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 7 coms.
Picking 9 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 12 coms.
Picking 10 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 20 coms.
Picking 11 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 37 coms.
Picking 12 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 42 coms.
Picking 13 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 76 coms.
Picking 14 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 100 coms.
Picking 15 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 136 coms.
Picking 16 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 168 coms.

For the uninitiated: the 'if' factor referred to above, means that if *four*
of your selected numbers appear in your lottery draw, then you are
guaranteed a 'match 4' win. The so-called 'Professor' Bluskov regularly
refers to the 'if' factor as a mathematical 'system' and (incidentally)
charges for the pleasure of doing so!

If anyone reading this post is not too sure about the 'if' factor but would
like to try it in his/her lottery, then post your chosen 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 numbers here and I will in turn, post you the
completed '4 if 4' *guaranteed* wheel (or system :-) absolutely free of
charge.

I can also provide you with 'banker number' wheels and several other types
of wheels, also with in-built 'if' guarantees, again, free of charge. All
you (as the player) has to do is let me know what your chosen numbers are
and how many combinations you wish to play.

But please remember, the more numbers you pick, the more combinations you
have to play. Picking *7* numbers gives you a guaranteed '4 if 4' in just
*5* combinations which may be okay for an individual player. Picking *16*
numbers for the same '4 if 4' guarantee means playing *168* combinations,
which is probably more suited to group, or syndicate play.

No need to go to Amazon or to any guff-filled information-overloaded
'Professor' website or 'Mathematician' chargeable forum.

No long drawn-out 'mysterious' crap - no catches - it's simple - it's here
in RGL and of course, it's.. FREE!

Nick UK

[lot...@telus.net]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 07:37:53 UTC-8, nigel wrote:
> <snips for brevity>
>
>
>
> lot...@telus.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > The
>
> > only advertising of my books for which I am responsible and have some
>
> > control over comes unaltered from the content of the books, such as
>
> > the presentations at
>
> >
>
> > http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/
>
>
>
> I've just had a look at your site.
>
>
>
> Is http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html designed to discourage
>
> potential purchasers? The style is reminiscent of a three-year-old
>
> playing with a set of coloured crayons for the first time, and not
>
> knowing whether to call yourself Doctor or Professor doesn't inspire
>
> confidence either. It gives off vibes of a scam rather than a serious
>
> book. And yet the testimonials on Amazon are evidence that the books
>
> must contain worthwhile content.

That is your perception of the pick-6 book presentation, and I respect that. I might or might not like the presentation that much, but this is irrelevant. Writing a book and placing it in some competitive market takes a bit more than just the author and it is a process that requires some compromise and consensus. There are editors, proofreaders, random readers who were given an advanced copy for opinion, etc. Certainly, there will be people who like the final product and those who do not. It is impossible to create a product that fits all tastes; perhaps you would like

http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick5book.html

better; not much colour there; just black on white. By the way, it is difficult to find a university professor who does not have a Ph.D. nowadays, and I am not one of the exceptions, but it just does not really matter to me how people call me; just Iliya would be OK; in any case, I am not inventing credentials for myself, am I?

>
>
>
> Using the term 'lottery system' for a wheel is incorrect and misleading.
>
> A wheel doesn't select the numbers for you and at best can only be a
>
> small component of a lottery system. The whole section at
>
> http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html#systems is garbage.

The term Lottery system is widely used in Europe instead of a wheel. It is also used as a more general term for all the machinery used in the processing of lottery tickets, such as lottery terminals, main computer, storage of information etc. There is no formal definition though. Regarding the said section, if that is your personal opinion, fine. There is not any false information there, and that is the point of the discussion here. I am answering to a person who states that I promote deceitful claims, which is just slightly milder than publicly calling me a liar, based on something someone said in advertizing material not produced by me. My answer is simple and clear: My books do not contain deceitful claims. If someone needs to see deceitful claims, they should just pick pretty much any other lottery strategy book or software and enjoy. I cannot be held responsible for what people who try to sell my books both legally or illegally advertise in various ways, like "Improves Your Odds By 7,540%"... Has anyone seen something like that in my books?

Iliya Bluskov

>
>
>
> Evil Nigel

[lot...@telus.net]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:25:44 UTC-8, Nick UK wrote:

>
> Rather than repeat what 'Professor' Bluskov drones on and on about on his
>
> multi-million word, information-overloaded Website, I have listed below, a
>
> simplified version of his so-called 'system' - more commonly known as a
>
> lottery 'wheel'.
>
>
>
> For example: choosing up to 16 numbers and 'wheeling' those numbers, you
>
> have the following alternatives, that is, depending on how much you want to
>
> spend on your lottery entry-tickets.
>
>
>
> Using 'Professor' Bluskov's much heralded (and mysterious) *4 if 4* wheel:
>
> below is a simplified (non-mysterious) example..
>
>
>
> If you select 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 numbers and *four* of
>
> your chosen numbers appear in the lottery draw you have entered, then the
>
> number of coms (combinations) you need to play, together with the following
>
> guarantees applicable, are here..
>
>
>
> Picking 7 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 5 coms.
>
> Picking 8 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 7 coms.
>
> Picking 9 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 12 coms.
>
> Picking 10 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 20 coms.
>
> Picking 11 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 37 coms.
>
> Picking 12 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 42 coms.
>
> Picking 13 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 76 coms.
>
> Picking 14 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 100 coms.
>
> Picking 15 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 136 coms.
>
> Picking 16 nos, gives you a 4 if 4 100% guarantee in 168 coms.
>
>

My book gives a bit more than just presenting each system; there is a table of winning possibilities, and comments on various characteristics; plus the wheels presented are shorter than those listed above:

11 numbers, 4 if 4 100% guarantee, 32 combinations
12 numbers, 4 if 4 100% guarantee, 41 combinations
13 numbers, 4 if 4 100% guarantee, 66 combinations
14 numbers, 4 if 4 100% guarantee, 80 combinations
15 numbers, 4 if 4 100% guarantee, 117 combinations
16 numbers, 4 if 4 100% guarantee, 152 combinations

and the list goes on and on; never mind,
Iliya Bluskov


>
> Nick UK

[nigel]

Not really. You've written a serious book on a serious subject and it
deserves a more professional web page. Actually web site would be better
- Web Design 101 includes rules about style, presentation and the
lengths of pages for good reason and the page is way too long.

>
> better; not much colour there; just black on white. By the way, it is
> difficult to find a university professor who does not have a Ph.D.
> nowadays, and I am not one of the exceptions, but it just does not
> really matter to me how people call me; just Iliya would be OK; in
> any case, I am not inventing credentials for myself, am I?

There are many scamsters out there and you have to distinguish yourself
from them. Calling yourself 'Doctor' in one sentence and 'Professor' in
the next would alert the scam radar of all but the least savvy readers.

>
>
>>
>>
>> Using the term 'lottery system' for a wheel is incorrect and
>> misleading.
>>
>> A wheel doesn't select the numbers for you and at best can only be
>> a
>>
>> small component of a lottery system. The whole section at
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html#systems is garbage.
>
>
>
> The term Lottery system is widely used in Europe instead of a wheel.
> It is also used as a more general term for all the machinery used in
> the processing of lottery tickets, such as lottery terminals, main
> computer, storage of information etc. There is no formal definition
> though. Regarding the said section, if that is your personal opinion,
> fine. There is not any false information there, and that is the point
> of the discussion here.

I think something must be lost in the translation then, because someone
hearing the term 'lottery system' in England or the USA, the arbiters of
the two principal branches of English (sorry Colin!), would expect some
form of number generation.

> I am answering to a person who states that I
> promote deceitful claims, which is just slightly milder than publicly
> calling me a liar, based on something someone said in advertizing
> material not produced by me. My answer is simple and clear: My books
> do not contain deceitful claims. If someone needs to see deceitful
> claims, they should just pick pretty much any other lottery strategy
> book or software and enjoy. I cannot be held responsible for what
> people who try to sell my books both legally or illegally advertise
> in various ways, like "Improves Your Odds By 7,540%"... Has anyone
> seen something like that in my books?
>
> Iliya Bluskov
>

I'm afraid I haven't read your books but I've seen plenty of similar
claims by scamsters and your Amazon reviews show that you're not one of
them.

On the rare occasions I've needed a wheel I've used Covermaster, and if
that meant buying an extra ticket because of a non-optimal wheel, I
wasn't unduly bothered. That sounds more negative than it should be -
I've played around with wheeling a little and it's fascinating how so
simple a concept can be so difficult for mathematics to tackle.

Evil Nigel

[Colin Fairbrother]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 08:26:58 UTC+11, lot...@telus.net wrote

in a separate thread which may be viewed here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/wMc-CVBBFEM/FObfUHeMgygJ
>
>"... makes your post libelous. ..."
> >

I welcome the opportunity to prove in a court of law that your claims for lesser Pool Covers or Wheels with a guarantee applicable only to the lesser Pool do not beneficially apply when applied to an actual Lotto game with a greater Pool.

In particular such Covers or Wheels for the given number of lines are in the main inferior to random Selections and even more so to Partial Covers where the full Pool for the Lotto game is used, paying subsets are not repeated and coverage is maximized for say 3if6 in a 6/49 Lotto game.

Among many pages of information at:
http://www.LottoPoster.com
or
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com -

I refer you to my table for the 6/49 Lotto game at
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

Once again I challenge you to find something wrong with that table.

The answer is, as you well know, there is nothing wrong with that table.

You've been caught out Doctor Bluskov - put up or shutup!
Поставете нагоре или shutup

Colin Fairbrother

[nigel]

Nick UK wrote:

>
> 'Professor' Iliya Bluskov states that 'all of the lottery systems presented
> in his book have certain guarantees'.
>
> He then goes on to explain what the advantages of using his lottery
> 'system'
> are and what a 'guarantee' means when using those 'systems'.
>
> Rather than repeat what 'Professor' Bluskov drones on and on about on his
> multi-million word, information-overloaded Website, I have listed below, a
> simplified version of his so-called 'system' - more commonly known as a
> lottery 'wheel'.
>
> For example: choosing up to 16 numbers and 'wheeling' those numbers, you
> have the following alternatives, that is, depending on how much you want to
> spend on your lottery entry-tickets.

I remember when newspapers used to distribute booklets of 'perms' for
the football pools for virtually the cost of the postage.

The included mostly 16 number wheels plus a few 12 number wheels etc and
they came with guarantees. Of course you had to get at least five draws
(later score draws) in a line before you stood a chance of winning anything.

Evil Nigel

[Colin Fairbrother]

I have started a post at: -
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736
which shows pictures of the front and back of the flyer that prompted me starting this thread.

Interestingly, I recall that the company distributing this flyer used to have similar outrageous claims but using the predictionist Gail Howard.

Colin Fairbrother

[Nick UK]

Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother droned..

> > I have started a post at: -
> >
> > http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

Warning! Anyone visiting the Fuhrer's self-dominated, chargeable forum
'Lotto Poster' is at serious risk of suffering from FFF (Fuhrer Fairbrother
Fatigue) and being charged an annual fee for the pleasure!

Went there and unsurprisingly found the usual, droning, drawn out, boring
shit from Fuhrer Fairbrother, the now infamous Lotto Loony! The only thing
of any use in all of that information-overloaded dung heap, was the
following statement by Fuhrer Fairbrother, seen at the foot of the page..

'Lotto Draws have no relationship to one another; the integers serve just as
identifiers. Any prediction calculation on one history of draws for a same
type game is just as irrelevant as another'.

Yet, I pick my nine numbers for my 56-com, 'Banker-1' wheel and Fuhrer
Fairbrother accuses me of this..

> Obviously, his 9 integer choice was based on appearance in previous
> draws which he thought would not be noticed - thick you see.
>
> Colin Fairbrother.

So, according to the Fuhrer, past history is of no use when choosing
numbers! However, when it suits his lying, low-life self, he will make the
accusation that using past history is an attempt to gain some sort of an
advantage in this particular case, that is, when 'Random' compared to
'Wheeling' is put to the test.

Fairbrother is definitely a cheat and a liar, as recently *proved* right
here in RGL!

So, why not admit it here and now, Fairbrother! You recently tried to
*steal* two additional 'hits' in your 'Lotto wheel 56 lines pool 9 Key-1,
versus Random selections' thread.

Ex-RGL leader Robert Perkis was spot on when describing Fuhrer Fairbrother
as a..

> group disrupter, liar and general all around scum bag!

Again..

YOU ARE A CHEAT!..
YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR!..
YOU ARE A FALSE ACCUSER!..
YOU HAVE NO POWER IN RGL!..
YOU'RE NOT WANTED HERE!..
GO NOW!

http://trollsville.bravesites.com/
(updated)

[lot...@telus.net]

Mr. Fairbrother,
I do not really know what to think about your posts. Clearly, admitting that you are wrong in something is out of your reach, so I am not going to bother too much to explain to you in detail what is wrong with you, but I will give it another try; in short: You claim that playing 9 combinations covering all numbers and meeting your criteria perform better than any system, or better than any set of 9 random combinations. That is fine with me. It is your belief and I am not going to read you a course in probabilities to try to dissuade you. The problem is elsewhere: You made a statement about what I do (promote deceitful claims), based solely on your invented statements, supposedly made by me somewhere. Well, there is no such statements; it is just in your mind. Assigning statements to me that I have never said and actions that I have never taken is a lie, and it is in a public forum, which makes it worse.

You keep making delusional statements and you keep assigning such statement to me as well; it seems the only purpose is to promote your own agenda, your findings. Your findings are veiled in the same confusion as the fruits of your imagination. Generally, you need help, and it is not the kind of help I am qualified to provide. My mistake though; I should know better than addressing/answering people like you. There is a condition, mild personality problem it is, called narcissism; one of the expressions of it is constantly being in need of attention, recognition and admiration. Something basically known as narcissistic supply. If there is not any positive way to get it, then negative and confrontational works as well, whatever works.

A quote from your website:
Dr Buskov claims you will do better by playing 20 lines that only use 10 of the 49 available integers and which has a guarantee of a 4 match if you were playing a 6/10 Lotto game. But you are not - you are playing a 6/49 game and it can be shown by both analysis and trials that you will do better with 20 lines that uses all the 49 integers, does not have the paying subsets repeated and has coverage maximized.

Where do I claim that? Have you read one of my books? You make a statement which conveniently raises interest in your findings, because it uses my name, which is OK; the problem is you assign to me a statement which I have not made, ever! Do you at least see my point? (Just for yourself, secretly; you do not have to admit it to the public...) My books are about lottery systems (wheels) and are for people who want to play, 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,... etc. numbers. There is no place where I suggest what quantity of numbers to play, it is up to the player to decide, and in no place I compare playing a system on N numbers with playing all the numbers of the lottery in some way. Yet you say: "Dr Buskov claims you will do better by playing 20 lines that only use 10 of the 49 available integers..." No he does not; it only happens in your own universe. Misrepresenting and misinterpreting my words is not a new strategy for you; you have employed it in a completely innocent situation, on a post which a wrote to help a discussion many years ago; my answer (a citation from a paper written by other people) was twisted to bring your greatness to the attention of the public; I answered many years after (you decided it is not me and that the answer is not there, but just for the record, it was me and my answer is still in this group)

And then again, delusional statement about what professor Bluskov "advocates": HOW CAN A PROFESSOR IN MATHEMATICS ADVOCATE THAT IT IS BETTER TO PLAY THE WHEEL WHERE YOU HAVE A 91% CHANCE OF GETTING NOTHING COMPARED TO THE RANDOM SELECTIONS SAMPLE WHERE YOU HAVE ONLY A 69% OR USING MY PARTIAL COVER ONLY 66%.

Again, where did you see this "advocation"? I do not advocate, I do not imply, I try to be perfectly clear about what I am saying, and I am universally understood; there is nothing between the lines in my books. The decision on how many numbers to play is up to the players; if they want to play all numbers with guarantee, or not, that is OK with me; perhaps, they will find your site and get some insights on how to do it.

Back to your "proof". An experiment is not a proof, it might be in some areas, but not in mathematics. Your claim is probabilistic by nature, and therefore mathematical. Check what constitutes a proof here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Your claim about a set of 9 tickets performing better than anything else is based on an experiment, or several experiments, on one particular lottery, with a very limited number of draws (compared to the number of all possible draws), with a particular prize table, and prize distribution over this particular limited selection of draws. Your choice of numbers is also very limited. Have you tested all possible sets of 9 combinations that meet your criteria? Do you even know the count of all such sets? Do you know how to generate all such sets? The number is immense; there is no way to test them all against all of the world lotteries and payouts over the years; if someone can do that, that will be a complete experiment.

Now the question is: Who cares? Lottery is a game with a huge advantage for the house. Most people know this very well. Still people are playing it, and will be playing it, just like any other form of gambling. I do play as well, and I assume, you do too. The expenses go under entertainment. My book is under Entertainment on Amazon as well. The lottery has the added attraction of the possibility of a huge jackpot. So, people are going to try every possible strategy out there irrelevant of whether Mr. Colin Fairbrother thinks that people should rush to his sites, get his strategy and forget about everything else.

As I said, I do not advocate any new philosophy; I have done research on wheels, published my findings; it is up to people if they want to try it or not. I have not invented the wheels; as I say it in my books, wheels are implemented in the automatic processing of tickets in some countries in Europe (which saves a lot of filling tickets to those who want to use wheels). No need to advocate an existing strategy of playing. I suggest putting some efforts in going after all of the lotteries; they advocate -50% return on investment on average. When done, do the same to Vegas and move onto online gambling. But I guess you would not like the risk, the hapless prof is much easier target.

Regarding advertising and how it is done, well, people can see through; they can decide whether to believe or not to whatever is advertised, they can decide if they want to buy it or not, or they can get a freebee etc., but that has never been your problem, has not it? There are reviews by buyers for everything sold nowadays, that helps. Your main concern seems to be self-promotion, and you are going the distance; you have invented an imaginary adversary; you are assigning statement and actions to this adversary, whatever works; in any case, I cannot explain; medical science is not my strong side.

I am out of here; retirement is knocking on the door.
Good luck all,
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Dear Dr Bluskov

You accuse me of being narcisstic when your smiling, close lipped face appears in most of your advertising material - see my updated article here: -
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

Part of the problem in dealing with you is that you don't present yourself in your posts here and publications on Lottery Systems or Covers or Wheels in a way that I would associate with a learned Professor in Combinatorics.

If indeed you wrote the original reply and signed it Iliya Bluskov in this thread then the standard was not what I would expect from a Doctor who is currently a Professor - I put it down to being another spoof by Gerry who has passed himself off as others repeatedly. I also could not associate the email address used previously with you

Where is another Professor that promotes partial Pool covers as giving better returns in Lotto?

Your problem is to confuse, obfusticate and yes, deceive people by presenting a conditional guarantee as being on the same level as a real guarantee. You have been doing this since at least 1997 as in your thesis titled New Designs and Coverings you state on Page 9, "... wants to play a 6/49 ... Thus the syndicate will secure a certain guarantee." No Doctor it's a conditional guarantee and a very big condition or if at that.

You follow up with an outrageous analogy of 80 random selection tickets on a restricted Pool of 14. Where is such a service offered by Lottery operators? Why not a comparison with random selections from the full pool for the game which I am certain will do better?

There is a simple solution to what you raise Dr Bluskov. In your writings and publicity material simply state that your Lottery Systems, Designs, Wheels or Covers when applied to whatever actual Lotto game will over a reasonable number of plays, say 1000, in the main not do as well as Random Selections and even more so to Partial Covers using the full Pool, paying subsets not repeated and Coverage maximized.

I'm happy to accept a valid mathematical proof that that is not the case if you can come up with it. In fact I'd consider a not insignificant wager that you can't.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

> Dear Dr Bluskov
>
> You accuse me of being narcisstic when your smiling, close lipped face appears in most of your advertising material - see my updated article here: -
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736
>
> Part of the problem in dealing with you is that you don't present yourself in your posts here and publications on Lottery Systems or Covers or Wheels in a way that I would associate with a learned Professor in Combinatorics.
>
> If indeed you wrote the original reply and signed it Iliya Bluskov in this thread then the standard was not what I would expect from a Doctor who is currently a Professor - I put it down to being another spoof by Gerry who has passed himself off as others repeatedly. I also could not associate the email address used previously with you
>
> Where is another Professor that promotes partial Pool covers as giving better returns in Lotto?
>
> Your problem is to confuse, obfusticate and yes, deceive people by presenting a conditional guarantee as being on the same level as a real guarantee. You have been doing this since at least 1997 as in your thesis titled New Designs and Coverings you state on Page 9, "... wants to play a 6/49 ... Thus the syndicate will secure a certain guarantee." No Doctor it's a conditional guarantee and a very big condition or if at that.
>
> You follow up with an outrageous analogy of 80 random selection tickets on a restricted Pool of 14. Where is such a service offered by Lottery operators? Why not a comparison with random selections from the full pool for the game which I am certain will do better?
>
> There is a simple solution to what you raise Dr Bluskov. In your writings and publicity material simply state that your Lottery Systems, Designs, Wheels or Covers when applied to whatever actual Lotto game will over a reasonable number of plays, say 1000, in the main not do as well as Random Selections and even more so to Partial Covers using the full Pool, paying subsets not repeated and Coverage maximized.
>
> I'm happy to accept a valid mathematical proof that that is not the case if you can come up with it. In fact I'd consider a not insignificant wager that you can't.
>
> Colin Fairbrother

Well, Mr. Fairbrother,
No, I cannot diagnose you; I am not qualified for that, but it is good knowledge to have, and worth checking; might help in life. But you are showing amazing stubbornness and unwillingness to address the issues I saw with your initial post, so it is your writing really that seems designed to confuse and obfuscate, not mine. I assume this stubbornness and unwillingness applies to accepting any opinion other than your own. Well, I will entertain you a bit more. You are either quite mixed up and in serious need of taking a closer look at some probability and statistics books, or you know what is wrong with your arguments, but you just crave publicity and you enjoy it at my expense. Please sent a message to lotbook at telus.net e-mail and get a copy of my book if you want to use my name and review the book or cite it on your site or here; that will be a better approach than assigning random statements to me.

First, I do not hide the fact that systems have conditions to be met. The conditions are discussed at length and appear together with each system as well, in fact in the TITLE of each system, which can be noticed from the web description

http://www3.telus.net/lotbook/pick6book.html#double

or at Amazon, just use the Search Inside feature. Or you can wait for a copy of the book.

The example at the above web page is

SYSTEM # 88: GUARANTEED TWO 4-WINS IF 4 OF THE NUMBERS DRAWN ARE IN YOUR SET OF 10 NUMBERS

This system has 30 combinations; the title is an "if" statement, and putting such information there is not exactly "hiding it", is it?

Now, the material at your page makes a comparison between playing a 20 lines system from my book and your 20 lines, where you concluded that your 20 lines are superior, because the yield is 26.25% (as calculated by you) as opposed to the yield of the system, 21.25% (again, as calculated by you)

You have a funny way of computing the yield. Can you explain why you chose only 50 draws? Why not 50,000, or better, all of the 13,983,816 possible draws (a complete experiment, as I explained previously)? You know, if you knew, you should have probably explained it right there; or if you wanted people to know; but I guess you did not, so let me explain it for you and for the readers; very simple, actually: You did not want to factor the more rare but richer winning opportunities of the system, such as
3 match x 5
or
4 match x 2,3,5,7 or 15
and on and on with many other possible
winning opportunities in the 5 match and 6 match area that the system has and "your" 20 lines do not have. That is exactly where the difference of 5% will completely be erased (and the totals should be used, not the percentages, as the percentages are rounded, insignificantly, but still). At the end, 20 lines perform just like 20 lines. If that is too complicated, a single ticket performs as any other single ticket if you run all possible draws on it; then multiply by twenty to complete the argument.

By the way, the idea of combinations being apart has been around for quite some time; you are not inventing the wheel there either (there are some structures in Combinatorics: designs with maximally different blocks, super-simple designs, packings or constant weight codes; I have written articles on all of these) that are defined exactly as having the combinations (or blocks, or codewords) as apart as possible. By the way, combinations as far apart as possible is a good property for a system to have (or the maximum coverage property), and I indicate it in my comments, whenever it happens.

This argument will be good for any mathematician and for most of the non-mathematicians; most likely, it will not be good for you, but that is all I can do.

[the.s...@gmail.com]

I always found these back-n-forth jabs in this newsgroup to be boring as its always the same banter. And probably one of the reasons I left back in 2001 or so. Everyone seems to have the "better" system (whatever that may be), and by gosh let me argue with you about it.

How about some civil discussion on the topic for a change?

Who here has the most optimized combinatorial computer function? Please share, and maybe we can ALL provide a critique to make it better for ALL of us!

Out

[the.s...@gmail.com]

Let me start ...

C(n,r) = n!/r!(n-r)!


Therefore ...


Function Factorial(i)
If i < 0 Then
Return 0
End
j = 1
While i > 1 Then
j = j * i
i = i - 1
Loop
Return j
End

Function Combination(n,r)
If n < r or r < 1 Then
Return 0
End
Return Factorial(n)/(Factorial(r) * Factorial(n-r))
End


Most optimized? Hell no!
Error prone? No doubt!

Any takers? We'll see ...

[Colin Fairbrother]

The problem you have Dr Bluskov is that Covers or Wheels have a purpose for the likes of Gail Howard or close to all of the currently active subscribers in this newsgroup - that is they believe they can narrow down the integers in the Pool for the next draw to a lesser number through various occultist, numerology and prediction methods. This I believe is total bunkum and I've written many articles debunking their methods. I assume as a good mathematician you agree with this.

So,what is your reason for promoting Wheels or Covers to be used by Lotto players? Let's at least agree on something - Lotto players that put some extra effort into playing a set of lines do so because they want to get wins over and above those they would receive from Random Selections. Where do you address this? I on the other hand from 2004 have always maintained Random Selections are the benchmark to measure any system by and consistently compared whatever I came up with them.

Do you honestly believe that a Lotto player is interested in say a hypothetical 6/10 Lotto game where a set of numbers, say C(10,6,4,4)=20), are guaranteed to give a prize but when applied to say a 6/49 Lotto game has no beneficial effect and in fact over say 1,000 plays or about 1 year playing once per week gives less wins?

In the past I have tested over longer plays as in the C(49,6,3,6)=163 for 16,300 plays but from reading what people have to say in this newsgroup and other forums they regard that as an excessive number. See
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/CoverageAloneDoesNotGiveTheBestLottoYield.aspx

So, what am I to make of this statement by you, "Can you explain why you chose only 50 draws? Why not 50,000, or better, all of the 13,983,816 possible draws (a complete experiment, as I explained previously)?" This is where I wonder whether I'm dealing with a current Professor in mathematics. I'm taking the high ground and leaving it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

I privately in an email once congratulated John Rawson, who I admire and respect, on being the first to calculate the match groupings based on the Pool, Pick and Hits as in his free program Covermaster. ie Tools|Reports|Detailed. He was quick to correct me and attributed the originality to Adolf Muehl.

To feign an aversion to a simplified prize table when you use them yourself in your books is well, simply not nice Professor especially since your prize tables are irrelevant as far as the actual Lotto game in which the Cover is used. For a C(10,6,4,4)=20 Cover used in a 6/49 Lotto game the likelihood of getting any match 5 prize for one draw (20 plays) is 4860/13,983,816 or 0.0003475 or 0.03475%. Over 50 draws (1000 plays) it still doesn't rate inclusion.

We have no doubt about your varied knowlege of Combinatorics Dr Bluskov but what I am concerned about and I think everyone else, is the best set to play to give the best return even if it is negative. That's the task and the Covers or Wheels freely available at -

Where the Prize Guarantee is the same as the Match see: -
http://www.ccrwest.org/cover.html

Where the Prize Guarantee is different to the Match see: -
http://www.weefs-lottosysteme.de/systeme,en.htm

just don't pass muster.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:14:36 PM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> The problem you have Dr Bluskov is that Covers or Wheels have a purpose for the likes of Gail Howard or close to all of the currently active subscribers in this newsgroup - that is they believe they can narrow down the integers in the Pool for the next draw to a lesser number through various occultist, numerology and prediction methods. This I believe is total bunkum and I've written many articles debunking their methods. I assume as a good mathematician you agree with this.
>
>
>
> So,what is your reason for promoting Wheels or Covers to be used by Lotto players?

Who said I am promoting wheels? Your imagination? I have written books on wheels. I am not promoting anything. I do not have the time to promote, advertise, communicate, print, sell, distribute etc., whatever is needed for a book to reach the market. Other people do that. I just have a couple of good books on an entertaining strategy of playing. Get one, check and see for yourself if it is what you think it is. I have written my books because systems were often missold for something they are not, and because I have the knowledge and the qualifications to do so.

Let's at least agree on something - Lotto players that put some extra effort into playing a set of lines do so because they want to get wins over and above those they would receive from Random Selections. Where do you address this?

Why do I have to address that? If you think something has to be addressed, and it will be interesting to enough people, then put together a book yourself and place it on the market, see how it goes. Or keep it online, as you do.

I on the other hand from 2004 have always maintained Random Selections are the benchmark to measure any system by and consistently compared whatever I came up with them.

And, I am sorry to bring that to your attention, but your arguments cannot withstand scrutiny...

>
> Do you honestly believe that a Lotto player is interested in say a hypothetical 6/10 Lotto game where a set of numbers, say C(10,6,4,4)=20),

Yes, because some people have 10 favorite numbers rather than 6, and they want to know what happens when some of their 10 numbers are drawn.

are guaranteed to give a prize but when applied to say a 6/49 Lotto game has no beneficial effect and in fact over say 1,000 plays or about 1 year playing once per week gives less wins?

This is according to you only.

>
> In the past I have tested over longer plays as in the C(49,6,3,6)=163 for 16,300 plays but from reading what people have to say in this newsgroup and other forums they regard that as an excessive number. See
>
> http://www.colinfairbrother.com/CoverageAloneDoesNotGiveTheBestLottoYield.aspx
>

I am afraid I have to disagree; 16,300 is too small a number. The only precise value of the yield of a system (if the sizes of 3-, 4-, 5- and 6-wins were fixed) is over all possible 13,983,816 combinations. Total all wins, then divide by 13,983,816. You miss one of these draws, it might be one with a 6-win, and you have just strongly biased the outcome of your experiment.

>
> So, what am I to make of this statement by you, "Can you explain why you chose only 50 draws? Why not 50,000, or better, all of the 13,983,816 possible draws (a complete experiment, as I explained previously)?" This is where I wonder whether I'm dealing with a current Professor in mathematics.

Again, you seem to have a very firm image of everything in your mind. Like: A professor should be this and that. Well, it might not be; it is a wide world, and free, I suppose.

I'm taking the high ground and leaving it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

No, I do not. You should have quoted the entire paragraph form my previous post

Here is how it continued:

You know, if you knew, you should have probably explained it right there; or if you wanted people to know; but I guess you did not, so let me explain it for you and for the readers; very simple, actually: You did not want to factor the more rare but richer winning opportunities of the system, such as
3 match x 5
or
4 match x 2,3,5,7 or 15
and on and on with many other possible
winning opportunities in the 5 match and 6 match area that the system has and "your" 20 lines do not have. That is exactly where the difference of 5% will completely be erased (and the totals should be used, not the percentages, as the percentages are rounded, insignificantly, but still). At the end, 20 lines perform just like 20 lines. If that is too complicated, a single ticket performs as any other single ticket if you run all possible draws on it; then multiply by twenty to complete the argument.

Which part you do not understand?

> To feign an aversion to a simplified prize table when you use them yourself in your books is well, simply not nice Professor especially since your prize tables are irrelevant as far as the actual Lotto game in which the Cover is used.

No, no, your tables are OK. Your interpretation of the tables is not...

For a C(10,6,4,4)=20 Cover used in a 6/49 Lotto game the likelihood of getting any match 5 prize for one draw (20 plays) is 4860/13,983,816 or 0.0003475 or 0.03475%. Over 50 draws (1000 plays) it still doesn't rate inclusion.

The last sentence of the above paragraph summarizes the reason behind your confusion: Just because something happens less than once in 50 draws, it should be disregarded, excluded from the computations. Well, how convenient! So, in computing the yield of a system we should only restrict to 3-wins and 4-wins then, because everything else rarely happens? No, this is not how it is done.

When these rare but rich wins happen, the yield of the system significantly jumps; your 20 lines also hit higher prizes, but the changes are less drastic; thus the discrepancy over 50 draws. Do the computations for all 13,983,816 combinations, assign some fixed amount for a 5-win and a 6-win as well and you will see that the yield of the system and your 20 lines is absolutely identical, equal to 20 times the yield of a single ticket when ran over all of the 13,983,816 draws.

If you start generating all of the 13,983,816 combinations and frequently perform your comparison (like in tables 3 and 5), then there will be times when your 20 lines will have larger yield, and there will be times when the system has larger yield.

How would you feel about the following argument: The combination 7,16,22,29,37,42 should never be played ever. Why? Well, because the probability of this particular combination is 1/13,983,816, which is less than 0.0000001, so it practically never happens, and therefore should be completely ignored. Now, the same argument works for any particular combination. So, no combination should ever be played then?

[Colin Fairbrother]

The theoretical wins for 50 draws playing 20 lines per draw or 1,000 plays in a 6/49 Lotto game is 18 match Threes at odds of 1 in 57 and 1 match Four at odds of 1 in 1032. The odds for a match 5 (which I did get once in a 6/44 game) are off the radar at 1 in 54,201.

Realistic Lotto players realize that if thay are playing 20 lines per week in a 6/49 Lotto game then they may get a match 5 over the next 52 years or longer. That being the case is there anything that can be done to maximize the match Threes and Match Fours through the structure of the set played. I examine this in my most read article -

ANALYSIS OF 15 LOTTO NUMBER SETS - WORST TO BEST
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=583

- with over 50,000 views (less the robots) and conclude that using the full Pool for the applicable Lotto game, keeping the paying sub-sets unique and maximizing the coverage for 3if6 gives the best returns.

I analyze structures around the 28 line mark including Covers or Wheels in the 6/49 Lotto game from worst to best as follows -

1.One Six combination is repeated 28 times; 98.13825% of Sixes uncovered.
.
2.Full System Eight or all the combinations of 6 integers from a Pool of 8; 95.30397% of Sixes Uncovered. How the Lottery Operators can promote the second worst style of play as increasing your chances of winning defies comprehension.
.
3.Cover or Wheel with Guarantee of a Five Win if 5 of the winning integers from a pool of 9 are obtained; despite allowing an extra 2 combinations to bring it up to 30 still 93.32568% of Sixes are uncovered. The abjectness and absurdity of this Cover is further revealed when it is realized that just 12 of the combinations maximized for coverage give the same uncovered percentage! Far from increasing the chances of getting a Five with a repeat of 54 of the Fives it decreases your chances not to mention the 624 Fours and 916 Threes repeated. The section of the mathematical community that espoused this Cover as being beneficial in Lotto and still continue to do so, should bow their heads in shame. The ignominy for the mathematical community at large is that exposure of this fraud was not done by one of their own but by yours truly, a competent database programmer guy that went to the trouble of checking things out.
.
4.One Five combination is repeated 28 times; 89.44119% of Sixes uncovered but still better than 5if5in9 Cover.
.
5.Cover or Wheel with Guarantee of a Four win if 4 of the winning integers from a pool of 11 are obtained; despite allowing an extra 4 combinations to bring it up to 32 still 88.25823% of Sixes are uncovered.
.
6.One Four combination is repeated 28 times; 83.99215% of Sixes uncovered but still better than a System play or both the 5if5in9 or 4if4in11 Covers.
.
7.C(14,6,4,5)=30
.
8.One Three combination is repeated 28 times; 73.48612% of Sixes uncovered but still better than a System play or the 5if5in9, 4if4in11 or 3if3in15 Covers.

.
9.Cover or Wheel with Guarantee of a Three win if 3 of the winning integers from a pool of 15 are obtained; despite allowing an extra 3 combinations to bring it up to 31 still 74.28749% of Sixes are uncovered. One Three combination is repeated 28 times; 73.48612% of Sixes uncovered but still better than a System play or the 5if5in9, 4if4in11 or 3if3in15 Covers.
.
10.C(24,6,3,5)=30
.
11.Cover or Wheel with Guarantee of a Three win if 4 of the winning integers from a pool of 19 are obtained; despite allowing an extra 2 combinations to bring it up to 30 still 69.60506% of Sixes are uncovered. For 28 of the combinations maximized for coverage of the Sixes the uncovered percentage rises to a whopping 91.15284%. Lordy, Lordy how can brain matter be so under utilized?
.
12.Cover or Wheel with Guarantee of a Three win if 6 of the winning integers from a pool of 28 are obtained; despite allowing an extra 3 combinations to bring it up to 31 still 65.485% of Sixes are uncovered.
.
13.Partial Cover to 28 combinations of 6 integers generated to give maximum coverage for 3if3in49 but only using pool of 48 to give 65.93677% of Sixes uncovered.
.
14.Good old Ramdom Selections - 2nd best and putting to shame all the nonsense that has been promoted since the 1980's with 60.33555% uncovered for the 28 combinations.
.
15.The best - 28 combinations with Unique Threes using the full pool of 49 and with coverage maximized to give only 54.25824% of Sixes uncovered.


Lotto players can effect their return without waiting a lifetime for the lower prizes. Dr Bluskov there is nothing you've put up apart from self evident utter nonsense that changes that.

I have shown your replies to acquaintances with high mathematical qualifications and they just can't believe that with you having a Doctorate in Mathematics you could be so out of touch with just plain common sense.

Colin Fairbrother

> > > Iliya Bluskov

[nigel]

lot...@telus.net wrote:

> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:14:36 PM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother
> wrote:
>

<selective snippery>

>>
>> So,what is your reason for promoting Wheels or Covers to be used by
>> Lotto players?
>
>
> Who said I am promoting wheels? Your imagination? I have written
> books on wheels. I am not promoting anything. I do not have the time
> to promote, advertise, communicate, print, sell, distribute etc.,
> whatever is needed for a book to reach the market. Other people do
> that. I just have a couple of good books on an entertaining strategy
> of playing. Get one, check and see for yourself if it is what you
> think it is. I have written my books because systems were often
> missold for something they are not, and because I have the knowledge
> and the qualifications to do so.

I think the key word is 'entertainment'. With an overall return of 50%
of stake money, the more combinations you play the greater your chance
of making a loss.

>> Do you honestly believe that a Lotto player is interested in say a
>> hypothetical 6/10 Lotto game where a set of numbers, say
>> C(10,6,4,4)=20),
>
>
> Yes, because some people have 10 favorite numbers rather than 6, and
> they want to know what happens when some of their 10 numbers are
> drawn.

The less numbers you play, the greater chance most people have of
exploiting one of the few weapons in their arsenal, volatility. I've
used a 6 from 10 wheel (unsuccessfully) myself.

(Actually that's not quite true - I had some success with it in a
football pools context.)

>
>> In the past I have tested over longer plays as in the
>> C(49,6,3,6)=163 for 16,300 plays but from reading what people have
>> to say in this newsgroup and other forums they regard that as an
>> excessive number. See
>>
>> http://www.colinfairbrother.com/CoverageAloneDoesNotGiveTheBestLottoYield.aspx
>>
>>
>
>
> I am afraid I have to disagree; 16,300 is too small a number. The
> only precise value of the yield of a system (if the sizes of 3-, 4-,
> 5- and 6-wins were fixed) is over all possible 13,983,816
> combinations. Total all wins, then divide by 13,983,816. You miss one
> of these draws, it might be one with a 6-win, and you have just
> strongly biased the outcome of your experiment.

Agreed. Using a test against randomness should only be used when you
truly don't have the mathematical capability to test against a complete
population.

(I used a sim with random data recently to check the calculated
significance of a correlation via a t-test and the result agreed to four
significant figures.)

>
>> To feign an aversion to a simplified prize table when you use them
>> yourself in your books is well, simply not nice Professor
>> especially since your prize tables are irrelevant as far as the
>> actual Lotto game in which the Cover is used.
>
>
> No, no, your tables are OK. Your interpretation of the tables is
> not...
>
> For a C(10,6,4,4)=20 Cover used in a 6/49 Lotto game the likelihood
> of getting any match 5 prize for one draw (20 plays) is
> 4860/13,983,816 or 0.0003475 or 0.03475%. Over 50 draws (1000 plays)
> it still doesn't rate inclusion.
>
> The last sentence of the above paragraph summarizes the reason behind
> your confusion: Just because something happens less than once in 50
> draws, it should be disregarded, excluded from the computations.
> Well, how convenient! So, in computing the yield of a system we
> should only restrict to 3-wins and 4-wins then, because everything
> else rarely happens? No, this is not how it is done.
>
> When these rare but rich wins happen, the yield of the system
> significantly jumps; your 20 lines also hit higher prizes, but the
> changes are less drastic; thus the discrepancy over 50 draws. Do the
> computations for all 13,983,816 combinations, assign some fixed
> amount for a 5-win and a 6-win as well and you will see that the
> yield of the system and your 20 lines is absolutely identical, equal
> to 20 times the yield of a single ticket when ran over all of the
> 13,983,816 draws.

If you consider all possible combinations, you will calculate the
expected return. I can see a case for a 'stripped-down' version to
calculate the mode return.

Evil Nigel

[lot...@telus.net]

Pretty much exactly as I expected. It is difficult to change one's thinking, especially after so many years believing in something and aggressively promoting it. Your list of 15 comparisons does not prove anything. It just proves that you like combinations as distinct as possible and with as little repetition as possible. You have introduced one particular criteria and you have ranked various systems and your 28 lines according to your chosen and favorite criteria. Your 28 lines win, what a surprise! But why do you think it is better to play that way remains a mystery, as this criteria has no effect on the yield (except in the worse case scenario of 1 combination repeated 28 times, because this "system" will only hit the jackpot once when ran over all ~14 million combinations, and it will be split; any other 28 lines will hit the jackpot in 28 different draws). All you can say is: It is better that way. In what sense? Every set of 28 distinct combinations will have absolutely the same yield when run over all ~14 million possible draws, which is equal to the yield of a single ticket when run over all possible draws, multiplied by 28. You are making the same mistake over and over, you only look at the performance of whatever system or set of lines over short span of draws, not over all possible draws. I mean, I did my best to explain to you how the yield SHOULD be computed. Hire any specialist in probability and statistics and ask the same questions, or read the books and figure out what is the right way. I am not here to analyze every line you have ever written here or at your web sites.

Let us go back to your 20 lines example. Why 50 times, really? What happens if one plays 100 times, would the expected yield be the same? How about 1000 times? How about if 14,000 people play 20 lines 50 times, thereby covering all of the ~14,000,000 combinations and getting all of the lines from the prize distribution table. Would all of them have the same expected yield, or it would be a bit higher due to some people getting 5-wins and the jackpot? Would not be appropriate to compute the yield of the 20 lines system by adding all of the individual yields and dividing by 14,000?

I am about to give up. Life is too short to spend it in fighting aggressive ignorance. After all we all go to the same place (or two different places depending on the beliefs). Speaking of beliefs, trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain to a believer that God does not exist. Good luck with selling your ideas to the public; I do not really mind. Just try not to attribute statements and actions born somewhere in your imagination to my name, if possible.
Iliya Bluskov

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:17:01 AM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:

> The theoretical wins for 50 draws playing 20 lines per draw or 1,000 plays in a 6/49 Lotto game is 18 match Threes at odds of 1 in 57 and 1 match Four at odds of 1 in 1032. The odds for a match 5 (which I did get once in a 6/44 game) are off the radar at 1 in 54,201.

"Off the radar" - just another way to ignore the reality. So what is your point: Do not play the lottery, because most likely you will not be a big winner. Anyone who does not know that, please raise your hand...

>
>
>
> Realistic Lotto players realize that if they are playing 20 lines per week in a 6/49 Lotto game then they may get a match 5 over the next 52 years or longer. That being the case is there anything that can be done to maximize the match Threes and Match Fours through the structure of the set played. I examine this in my most read article -

And what is your definition of "realistic lotto player"? One who never expects better than a 4-win? I am sure 100% of all players play exactly because they expect a large win, no matter whether this is realistic or not; certainly it happens, so it has to be taken into account. Lottery is a form of gambling, it is not a GIC with fixed ROI (guaranteed investment certificate with fixed return on investment).

>
>
>
> ANALYSIS OF 15 LOTTO NUMBER SETS - WORST TO BEST
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=583
>
>
>
> - with over 50,000 views (less the robots) and conclude that using the full Pool for the applicable Lotto game, keeping the paying sub-sets unique and maximizing the coverage for 3if6 gives the best returns.

OK, 50,000 people read a wrong statement. Does this make it right? See, I do not mind if you sell your understanding of good strategy to people, even if you are wrong in some details. As I said, people try everything, because it might work for them, or just for fun. I did not come to RGL shouting "Mr. Colin Fairbrother is wrong and tries to sell you deceitful claims", did I? I came here because Mr. Colin Fairbrother tries to sell his claims using my name, basically calling me a liar, so he can promote his own flawed strategy.

Really; any names, qualifications?

[Colin Fairbrother]

As previously stated I am a free thinker and open to being proved wrong. The intransigent one is yourself - but I can understand why it is difficult for you to walk away from your life's work as known to the general public.

The method I have used is well accepted by the Lotto analysis community ie to calculate the coverage of a Lotto design by testing for a match over all the possible combinations for the match and hits under consideration eg for a 6/49 Lotto game 13,983,816 combinations of 6 integers. This can be done with John Rawson's free Covermaster.

You seem to have difficulty in understanding my application of proportionality, which is unusual for a Mathematics Professor and makes me believe you are being disingenuous because you do not want to face the truth.

The prize tables as shown at -

http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

are acknowledged by you as being correct.

For a well and truly randomized 13,983,816 combinations half of those will give coverage figures pretty well half as well and similarly for one third, one quarter etc. We can also apply proportionality by way of the draw plays - so one draw with 20 plays can be proportioned to 1,000 plays or 50 draws. I thought I was being original at the time I did it, so given it is so hard for you to get your head around, I'll take credit for being the originator of this method.

Does it stack up? It does, well and truly, giving Yields pretty much the same as when tested by trials against generated random selections or Lotto histories and in the case of the Steiner C(22,6,3,3) a Yield pretty much the same as the theoretical calculation for a hypothetical 6/22 Lotto game.

Professor G H J van Rees of Manitoba University described the C(22,6,3,3)=77 with "... you could not get a better lotto design." in a talk titled -

Betting Wheels, Lotteries and Lotto Designs
http://www.cs.umanitoba.ca/~vanrees/lottotalk.doc

In the same talk on page 3 Prof van Rees states with regard to the Lotto Designs -
"This talk will not be about increasing your expected gain"

Good one Prof.

Lotto players have a miniscule chance at 1st or 2nd prize for a 6/49 Lotto game and are interested in how often they get wins and the quantity of those wins over a reasonable time period, say 50 draws, or 1,000 plays or about 1 year if playing 20 lines per draw.

The percentage return or Yield for that time period is relevant not 5 years or 10 years or 50 years. Over that time period do some sets played give better results than others? Yes, they do and you know it but obdurately you resist accepting that. This brings into question the whole purpose about using different designs and especially your designs mostly arrived at by others with regard to Lotto.

I don't think your publishers would like it known that using your systems people have to participate in millions of draws before any difference can be discerned. Wake up Doctor this Earth not Mars!

Also, much as you would like to, you can't detach yourself from the responsibility for whatever hype is attached to selling and promoting your booklets.

Have a nice day!

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:42:34 PM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> As previously stated I am a free thinker and open to being proved wrong.

I can see that... completely open.

The intransigent one is yourself - but I can understand why it is difficult for you to walk away from your life's work as known to the general public.

Now I am intransigent; just because I do not want to confirm your dilettante theories as being correct?

>
>
>
> The method I have used is well accepted by the Lotto analysis community ie to calculate the coverage of a Lotto design by testing for a match over all the possible combinations for the match and hits under consideration eg for a 6/49 Lotto game 13,983,816 combinations of 6 integers. This can be done with John Rawson's free Covermaster.

Here we go.

>
>
>
> You seem to have difficulty in understanding my application of proportionality, which is unusual for a Mathematics Professor and makes me believe you are being disingenuous because you do not want to face the truth.
>

Which truth? Your own truth born by your imagination or the universally accepted truth? I do not have any problems with the universally accepted truth.

Proportionality - do you have an idea what you are talking about? Proportionality means: You compute the yield over all possible 13,983,816 draws and if you want to know the average yield over 50 draws you take 50/13,983,816 parts of it; you do not factor out the big wins, just because these rarely happen; or in other words, you do not selectively use the few top lines of your winning possibilities tables; you have to use the entire table, with all of its lines covered within all possible 13,983,816 draws.

>
>
> The prize tables as shown at -
>
>
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736
>
>
>
> are acknowledged by you as being correct.
>

But your argument about what happens over 50 draws is not.

>
>
> For a well and truly randomized 13,983,816 combinations half of those will give coverage figures pretty well half as well and similarly for one third, one quarter etc. We can also apply proportionality by way of the draw plays - so one draw with 20 plays can be proportioned to 1,000 plays or 50 draws. I thought I was being original at the time I did it, so given it is so hard for you to get your head around, I'll take credit for being the originator of this method.

Funny man.

>
>
>
> Does it stack up? It does, well and truly, giving Yields pretty much the same as when tested by trials against generated random selections or Lotto histories and in the case of the Steiner C(22,6,3,3) a Yield pretty much the same as the theoretical calculation for a hypothetical 6/22 Lotto game.
>
>
>
> Professor G H J van Rees of Manitoba University described the C(22,6,3,3)=77 with "... you could not get a better lotto design." in a talk titled -
>
>
>
> Betting Wheels, Lotteries and Lotto Designs
>
> http://www.cs.umanitoba.ca/~vanrees/lottotalk.doc
>
>
>
> In the same talk on page 3 Prof van Rees states with regard to the Lotto Designs -
>
> "This talk will not be about increasing your expected gain"
>
>
>
> Good one Prof.
>
>
>
> Lotto players have a miniscule chance at 1st or 2nd prize for a 6/49 Lotto game and are interested in how often they get wins and the quantity of those wins over a reasonable time period, say 50 draws, or 1,000 plays or about 1 year if playing 20 lines per draw.

I agree about the miniscule chance, but how do you know what ALL lottery players are interested about? I have communicated with thousands of them; you seem to have pretty unique interests.

>
>
>
> The percentage return or Yield for that time period is relevant not 5 years or 10 years or 50 years. Over that time period do some sets played give better results than others? Yes, they do and you know it but obdurately you resist accepting that. This brings into question the whole purpose about using different designs and especially your designs mostly arrived at by others with regard to Lotto.

What do you know about who constructed what and who actually provided them with the constructions or the computer computational methods to make these constructions? You are aware of a couple of covering records repositories, where covering designs are submitted by various people, with not much concern about copyright. I do not mind, science is based on cooperation. Most of the very prolific contributors actually read papers on coverings and extract constructions and coverings from there. Well, who writes these papers? A long list of researchers, which includes me, like it or not; none of any of the other authors or producers of website and software on lotto strategies... Many coverings in my books have been previously described in my own papers on coverings. Never mind, you seem to have a huge problem with anyone who writes a book on lottery strategy, or sell software, you put all in the same category. Well, most of the people who have done that are not familiar with the mathematics and the computational methods behind finding a good covering. You have been trying to match me to something familiar, like Gail Howard; I do not know why you have such a big problem with me, in particular. You do not seem to have any problems with the people who run the lottery, a game with a huge edge for the house, these people are selling (and mind you, advertising) us a game with return which is less than the return of any game in Vegas, but you have a problem with one author, the author of two of the probably around 10,000 books on gambling strategies (type "gambling" at Amazon for the exact number).

>
>
>
> I don't think your publishers would like it known that using your systems people have to participate in millions of draws before any difference can be discerned. Wake up Doctor this Earth not Mars!
>
>
>
> Also, much as you would like to, you can't detach yourself from the responsibility for whatever hype is attached to selling and promoting your booklets.

Well, what can I do? People have all kind of opinions or misrepresentations of the material in my books. As a simple example, you are one of them! But most of my readers take the books for what they are. Can I stay on watch for every wrong statement about my books and fight it day and night? It might look easy from the outside... Someone gets my book, then decides to sell it on e-bay and advertises that it gives a strategy of wining the Jackpot. Can I control that? Can I be held responsible for that? Or look at a previous example that appeared in this thread. Again, it is a free world, people can decide for themselves whether they believe a particular advertisement and they can decide whether to proceed with buying the product. Do not we all do it every day? They can also check reviews of the product written by other buyers and make informed decision. Some of the reviews might have wrong interpretations as well.
>
>
>
> Have a nice day!
Night here, but thank you.

Just like most of your posts so far, you keep giving advice, scolding, throwing more and more arguments of the same erroneous type to defend your position, mostly to justify your actions on creating the main issue behind this thread, which is, to remind the patient reader, the fact that you claim I promote deceitful claims based on
1) your flawed understanding of yield
2) your unfounded perception that I promote something contradicting your flawed theories about yield; I do not think the word yield or anything related to it appears anywhere in my books, anyway. I have never been concerned with it.

Now, I expect the advice that I should be concerned about it; no I am not going to be concerned; as I said before, lottery is not a GIC with fixed ROI; pretty much everyone knows that.

Perhaps some authors before me have tried to present the lottery as a good investment opportunity. Investment - yes, good - no. The lottery is entertainment, recreation, if you like (RGL has it in the title). Any strategy is then an entertainment strategy; there is not anything more than that in my books (well, some people might actually learn some mathematics and logic while they read).

You have put quite an effort in trying to hide the fact that you attempted to sell your flawed strategies by accusing me in promoting different strategies, a statement which is so wrong that I feel utter exhaustion just by the thought that I have to address it again. I guess the easy way out is to just give up. You win, Colin, I lose. Madness takes over. It has happened so many times in the history of mankind; it will happen one more time.
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

I think you need to have another look at the prize tables at: -

http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

The tables shown are from John Rawson's Covermaster but I have my own program, written by me, that gives all the groups without necessarily summarizing by range. eg for Fig 3 lines 11 to 13 can be replaced by -

6's 5's 4's 3's Total
- 1 3 11 2340
- 1 4 10 2340
- 2 9 8 60
- 3 7 9 60
- 3 8 7 60

I mention this to indicate I do know what's going on.

Only one grouping will apply to a draw. To arrive at the groupings each combination from 13,983,816 is tested and the result stored. From these results they are grouped, counted and sorted. Now, maybe what I refer as combinations you are referring to as "draws". Covermaster doesn't show the total for the Total column which is 13,983,816.

To say I can't apply proportionality is just plain nonsense and you know it.

Theoretical calculations are usually better than trials or analysis calculations but they all correlate including the proportional calculations. There is no bias towards any particular design.

I'm happy if you don't reply to this because I don't believe there is any way to overcome your intransigence by simple common sense and logic.


On Monday, 13 January 2014 19:33:28 UTC+11, lot...@telus.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Iliya Bluskov

[lot...@telus.net]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:21:53 AM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> I think you need to have another look at the prize tables at: -
>
>
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736
>
>
>
> The tables shown are from John Rawson's Covermaster but I have my own program, written by me, that gives all the groups without necessarily summarizing by range. eg for Fig 3 lines 11 to 13 can be replaced by -
>
>
>
> 6's 5's 4's 3's Total
>
> - 1 3 11 2340
>
> - 1 4 10 2340
>
> - 2 9 8 60
>
> - 3 7 9 60
>
> - 3 8 7 60
>
>
>
> I mention this to indicate I do know what's going on.

No problem here.

>
>
>
> Only one grouping will apply to a draw. To arrive at the groupings each combination from 13,983,816 is tested and the result stored. From these results they are grouped, counted and sorted. Now, maybe what I refer as combinations you are referring to as "draws". Covermaster doesn't show the total for the Total column which is 13,983,816.

No problem here either.

>
>
>
> To say I can't apply proportionality is just plain nonsense and you know it.

No, I do not know it. Applying proportionality IS plain nonsense.

>
>
>
> Theoretical calculations are usually better than trials or analysis calculations but they all correlate including the proportional calculations. There is no bias towards any particular design.

Nonsense; theoretical calculations and complete experiment correlate, but neither correlates with your proportional calculations; these are your own invention and are incorrect. Get some independent expert advice on that or read the books, if you do not believe me.

>
>
>
> I'm happy if you don't reply to this because I don't believe there is any way to overcome your intransigence by simple common sense and logic.

Well, you will soon be happy; I cannot continue this fruitless discussion forever; but for now: Perhaps, it is not as simple as your mind keeps telling you. In any case, you fail to address any of the arguments I diligently provided for your education, and you keep sending me to your post, where in a real "spiel" style (yes, I borrowed a word) you promote your own flawed theory, by spicing it with frequent referrals to my name in a very denigrating and condescending manner. This is morally wrong, shows lack of respect and ethics, but it also shows that you ran out of any reasonable arguments and just keep repeating: "But I am right, I am right; see I have put up a page and it is full of numbers and the numbers so much make sense to me." They do, I can see that, but you are wrong in how you interpret them! Get a second opinion. Being persistent is generally a good quality, but one does not gain too much by being stubborn. Anyway, if nothing else, time will show who is right. Meanwhile, I will have to live with whatever damage you have done, I guess.
Good luck in whatever you are up to,
Iliya Bluskov
>
>

[Colin Fairbrother]

Let's consider the Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77. If there was a 6/22 Lotto game I would be happy to play it if the entry cost was low enough. There are no repeat CombThree subsets and therefore no repeat CombFours and CombFives. The guarantee is you will win a match 3 prize or better every draw in this hypothetical 6/22 game. It fits all my criteria for a 3 prize guarantee.

The following possible matches apply to the full Pool of 22.
If you match 3 integers you get that prize as all 1540 CombThrees are in the set.
If you match 4 integers there is a 84% chance you will get a 3 Match x 4 and a 16% chance you will get a match 4.
If you match 5 integers there is a 28% chance you will get a 3 Match x 10, a 70% chance you will get a Match 4 with 6 Match 3's and a 2% chance you will get a match 5.
If you match 6 integers then there are 5 possibilities with varying likelihoods as in the table below: -

6 5 4 3 Total Approx %

- - - 20 2464 3
- - 2 12 55440 74
- - 3 8 9240 13
- 1 0 10 7392 10
1 0 0 0 77 -
_________________________
74,613 100

By proportion over 100 draws you are most likely to get 100 prizes of varying value according to the prize quantity multiplied by the quantity as shown in the % column to give the following totals: -
Match 3: 1152
Match 4: 187
Match 5: 10

Expected per probability formula -
Match 3: 1156
Match 4: 186
Match 5: 10

Good enough for me and Molly Magee.

The same proportionality can be applied for 13 draws or near enough to 1,000 plays.

Colin Fairbrother

[Nick UK]

Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother droned..
>

> Let's consider the Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77. If there was a 6/22 Lotto game
> I would be happy to play it if the entry cost was low enough. There are no
> repeat CombThree subsets and therefore no repeat CombFours and
> CombFives. The guarantee is you will win a match 3 prize or better every
> draw in this hypothetical 6/22 game. It fits all my criteria for a 3 prize
> guarantee.
>
> The following possible matches apply to the full Pool of 22.
> If you match 3 integers you get that prize as all 1540 CombThrees are in
> the set. If you match 4 integers there is a 84% chance you will get a
> 3 Match x 4 and a 16% chance you will get a match 4. If you match 5
> integers there is a 28% chance you will get a 3 Match x 10, a 70% chance
> you will get a Match 4 with 6 Match 3's and a 2% chance you will get a
> match 5. If you match 6 integers then there are 5 possibilities with
> varying likelihoods as in the table below: -
>
> 6 5 4 3 Total Approx %
>
> - - - 20 2464 3
> - - 2 12 55440 74
> - - 3 8 9240 13
> - 1 0 10 7392 10
> 1 0 0 0 77 -
_________________________
> 74,613 100

> By proportion over 100 draws you are most likely to..

> <snip the remaining, lying shit>

> Colin Fairbrother
..................................................................................

Huh? The Fuhrer says..

*IF* there was a 6/22 Lotto game, he'd be happy to play it..

Also..

*IF* the entry cost was low enough, he'd be happy to play it!

Huh?

What the Fuhrer has done here, is *invent* a non-existent 6/22 lotto game
and applied the above nonsensical 'win probability' crap simply to fit in
with his non-existent, self-invented 6/22 game!

In an early reply in this thread, Iliya Bluskov quite correctly stated..

> Nonsense; theoretical calculations and complete experiment

> correlate, but neither correlates with your proportional calculations.
> you promote your own flawed theory..

>
> trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain to a
> believer that God does not exist.

Precisely, Mr. Bluskov!

I've said it before and I'll say it again..
Fuhrer Fairbrother ain't right in the fkn head!

Mr Bluskov concludes with..

> Just try not to attribute statements and actions born somewhere in

> your imagination to my name.


If it's any consolation to you Mr Bluskov, Fuhrer Fairbrother has lied his
way over many years, promoting useless lottery formulae and
percentage-probabilities that he always manages to fit in with his
'probability' figures and his crazy imagination!

Seldom will the Fuhrer communicate with anyone unless they agree 100% with
whatever he says. Anyone who gives a differing point of view to the Fuhrer,
is usually condemned as an imbecile!

Getting back to my 56-com 'Banker-1' wheel, described by the Fuhrer as
'pathetic' he obviously dreamed up some stupid formula in his own crazy
mind, detailing how I could have checked the past history of my 56-coms
*before* posting the coms here! An absolute lie and even if I *could* have
done what he accuses me of, what difference would it make to my 56-coms in
*future* draw results?

Not forgetting Fairbrother's latest shame with his attempt to *steal*
non-existent hits in the current 'Random v Wheeling' test. An absolute
disgrace that anyone could stoop so low simply to get ahead in a simple
test!

Fairbrother has conveniently avoided mentioning his attempted theft, in the
hope that it will be forgotten! Let me assure him, it will *not* be
forgotten.. thief, liar!

A message to Mr Bluskov.. you should continue posting here as a regular and
maybe eventually, you, me and other RGL subscribers, will rid the forum of
the proven mental case, Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother.

Good luck to you.
Nick UK.

And again..

FAIRBROTHER!

[nigel]

I've just come across www.bluskov.com, www.bluskov1.com and
www.bluskov2.com.

What I don't understand is why the contact address for those sites is
the European Lottery Guild, which is a ticket-buying butler service.

(I particularly enjoyed the following from Google Translate: "In other
systems, you are just wasting time and money - this book is accurate
anywhere for Lotto foxes right! I consecrate you into my secrets.")

Evil Nigel

[lot...@telus.net]

Nice system, classic one; it has a lot of structure, the combinations are as apart as possible; it has short table of wins, etc., but this is irrelevant to the discussion here; I do not see any new points. Changing the system (or the number of lines) does not change the way of computing the yield. And since your main reason to start this thread was based on flawed understanding of yield, your original post seems a bit out of place now, do not you think? (I mean, even if I PROMOTE what you say I promote, which was already shown not to be the case...)

Just to make it simple, here is one more illustration about the flaws in this "proportionality law" of yours.

Suppose I give you a closed bag filled with 4 black balls and 16 white ones, but you do not know the number of black balls and you decide to experiment, say by randomly drawing 4 balls out of the bag (20% of the balls there, pretty substantial part, right; compare with 50 draws out of 13,983,816...). So, according to your "law of proportionality", what would your guess be about the number of black balls if you pulled two black and two white balls out of the bag? Your conclusion, based on your "law of proportionality" will be somewhere around 10, right? This gives you a clear example of the big discrepancy that might happen if you restrict yourself to a partial experiment. The complete experiment will be to draw all 20 balls and count the black ones, and see that there are 4 blacks. I can rewrite this example in terms of probabilities, if you think it is not similar enough to your way of assessing the yield of a system.

Like: What is the probability of drawing a black ball? Well, we already know it is 4/20=20%. Based on you experiment, and your "proportionality law", you will conclude that the probability is ~2/4=50% and you will be wrong. As wrong as when you evaluate the yield of a set of combinations by the same "proportionality law" and not by an exhaustive experiment.

By the way, your "proportionality law" will lead to a wrong conclusion no matter what you draw out of the bag!

Your pick: "Proportionality law" conclusion

4 white 0 black no blacks in the bag
3 white 1 black 5 blacks
2 white 2 black 10 blacks
1 white 3 black 15 blacks
0 white 4 black all 20 black

Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Percentage Return is a term commonly used in gambling and is synonymous with Yield. Quite simply it is the ratio of the winnings to the cost. In the case of the exceptional C(22,6,3,3)=77 which is brilliant for a hypothetical 6/22 Lotto game but is inferior to my Partial Cover for the same number of lines in a 6/49 Lotto game which is the point.

The 1,000 plays or 13 draws may seem low because of the high 77 lines played per draw but it is my own preference and is a reasonable estimate of what people play. In my case its throw away money at 18 lines per week costing $11.80 with double the lines for no good reason when the 1st prize is $20 million or $30 million. So I play about a 1,000 lines per year.

The percentage return or yield is arrived at by totalling the prizes for the most likely groups and then dividing by the cost. There is only 1 applicable prize group per draw but there can be multiples of the same prize group.

The prize table below is from my own analyzer and shows all the prize groups.
Multiplying the probability by a factor derived from the 1,000 plays nominated divided by the plays per draw ie 12.987 gives the most likely draws.

Six Five Four Three Total Probability Likely
- - - - 6126120 0.438086 6
- - - 1 4504500 0.322122 4
- - - 4 2162160 0.154618 2
- - - 10 199584 0.142725
- - - 20 2464 0.000176
- - 1 0 405405 0.028991 1
- - 1 6 498960 0.035681
- - 2 12 55440 0.003964
- - 3 8 9240 0.000660
- 1 0 0 12474 0.000892
- 1 0 10 7392 0.000528
1 0 0 0 77 0.000005
13,983,816 13

Using the old UK costs and payouts of £1 per line and £10 for a match 3 and £56 for a match 4 we get the following prizes -
Match 3 x 1 4 x 10 = £40
Match 3 x 4 2 x 40 = £80
Match 4 x 1 1 x 56 = £56
Total £176
Yield or Percentage Return: 17.6%

Uncovered in a 6/49 Lotto game for the C(22,6,3,3)=77 Cover is 43.81% whereas in my partial cover it is only 12.08%. My prizes are
Match 3 x 1 5 x 10 = £50
Match 3 x 2 4 x 20 = £80
Match 3 x 3 1 x 30 = £30
Match 4 x 1 1 x 56 = £56
Total £216
Yield or Percentage Return: 21.6%

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

ONLY UNDER THE CONDITION THAT A 5- OR 6-WIN NEVER HAPPENS. (Oops, someone missed a condition; was that me or Mr. Fairbrother?) Can you absolutely discard this possibility in your computations? Do you really believe that repeating a false statement hundreds of times makes it true? What happens to your computations if you GET a 5-win? It rarely happens, OK, but it does! People play because 5-wins and 6-wins happen. It might not happen to you, but what if 100 people play 50 draws each? Would they have the same expected yield? No, because there will be 5-wins to factor, right? What if we go over larger sample? Perhaps, that is why people form syndicates to play. The expected yield per ticket is a constant which is the same for everyone, for every draw (if the payoff is fixed for 5-win and 6-win). Your "formula" gives you a convenient tool to promote your strategy, but it is flawed, mathematically incorrect, in an obvious way.

Anyway, you do not get it; I give up. You see, I am a teacher by trade, I deal with confusion every day, and I know it can be a very persistent condition. Publish a couple of more of your tables and let us close the topic. The damage is done; you do not seem to have items like "I am sorry" or "I am wrong" in your repertoire, so, best of luck with changing the universal truth to fit whatever you are trying to sell at your sites. There is no sense to refer you to other mathematicians or to the literature; you have no respect to authority; if you do not believe me, then you will not believe anyone else, I guess. Or, well, I forgot, "I am the odd doctor out".
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Doctor Iliya Bluskov (Professor at University of Northern British Columbia)

You seem to be putting your salvation in getting Match Fives. What you overlook to consider is that the three main factors that determine one set doing better than another is whether the full Pool is used, are the subsets duplicated and is the coverage maximized for the game being played. Thinking that your Covers will do better with often duplicate Comb Fives is delusional.

You accuse me of not making it known that I am concentrating on returns over a reasonable period, say one year which is false. Try to read my article titled -

LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
by Colin Fairbrother
at http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

and you will see this paragraph that has been there from the time the article was first put up in May 2012.

"Most constructions will return the expected yield over a thousand or so draws but why wait 20 years when you can get that same return in 2 years?"

This is consistent with what I have written from 2004.

Dr Bluskov you have been playing in the devil's garden, strutting you stuff with the likes of Gail Howard and Ken Silver, relying on the prestige of your academic qualifications and University Professorship to flog two tawdry Lotto nonsense booklets and little old me has shot you down in flames with your parachute burning.

All the talk about libel amounts to nothing when what I have written and will continue to write is true. I don't need to retract one word. How about you? Maybe you can say, "Sorry Colin, you were right and I was wrong; I simply let my intellectual arrogance get the better of me. Please forgive me, I beg you, please pretty please". Maybe that's a little over the top but you get the message.

Have your students ever told you you don't listen? I wrote in this very thread that I had got a match 5 win see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/Ob60hvuAQR8J and that was June 14, 2003 and I got a lousy $1,317. The odds of getting that in a 6/44 Lotto game with 2 bonus numbers (at the time) were 1 in 32676. With me playing 18 lines per week I can expect only 1 in a lifetime.

Moreover, I only need 1000 plays to prove that playing your Covers or Wheels gives inferior results for the match 3's and match 4's compared to my Partial Covers. According to you I should be doing it for millions of draws. That Professor is just plain balmy and throws into question why you are flogging your booklets without making that loud and clear.

With the odds for a match 5 so high it is not really relevant to the wins people normally get. Also inherent in your thinking is the belief that if the match 5's are factored in, your Covers or Wheels will do better than my Partial Covers. This is absurd as quite often these Partial Pool Covers or Wheels have repeat Comb Fives which means it will take longer to get a multiple match 5 hit.

Let's indulge you by considering 55,000 plays in a 6/49 Lotto game where the odds of getting a match 5 are 1 in 54,201. I am using the old UK costs and payouts of £1 per line and £10 for a match 3, £56 for a match 4 and £1500 for a match 5. Using the analysis in my previous post at -

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/vrB3rqJHbs0J

we get the following prizes in a 6/49 Lotto game for 714 draws or 55,000 plays.

C(22,6,3,3)=77 (Uncovered 43.81%)
Match 3 x 1 230 x 10 = £2300
Match 3 x 4 110 x 40 = £4400
Match 3 x 10 10 x 100 = £4400
Match 3 x 20 0 x 200 = 0
Match 4 x 1 21 x 56 = £1176
Match 4 x 1 + 3 x 6 25 x 116 = £2900
Match 4 x 2 + 3 x 12 3 x 232 = £696
Match 4 x 3 + 3 x 8 0 x 304 = 0
Match 5 x 1 1 x 1500 = £1500
Match 5 x 1 + 3 x 10 0 x 232 = 0
Match 6 x 1 0 x ? = 0
Total £13972
Yield or Percentage Return: 25.4%

My Partial Cover 77 lines (Uncovered 12.08%)
Match 3 x 1 --------------276 x----10 = £2760
Match 3 x 2 --------------233 x----20 = £4660
Match 3 x 3 ---------------60 x----30 = £1800
Match 3 x 4 ----------------5 x----40 = £200
Match 3 x 5 ----------------0 x----50 = 0
Match 3 x 6 ----------------0 x----60 = 0
Match 4 x 1 ---------------28 x----56 = £1568
Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 1 22 x----66 = £1452
Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 2 3 x----76 = £228
Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 3 0 x----86 = 0
Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 4 0 x----96 = 0
Match 4 x 2 0 x---112 = 0
Match 4 x 2 + Match 3 x 1 0 x---122 = 0
Match 4 x 2 + Match 3 x 2 0 x---132 = 0
Match 5 x 1 ----------------1 x--1500 = 1500
Match 5 x 1 + Match 3 x 1 0 x--1510 = 0
Match 5 x 1 + Match 3 x 2 0 x--1520 = 0
Match 5 x 1 + Match 3 x 3 0 x--1530 = 0
Match 6 x 1 ----------------0 x-----? = 0
Total £14,168
Yield or Percentage Return: 25.76%

As expected there is only a couple of hundred quid between them in my favour.

You seem to confuse overall return with that for an individual playing the Lotto game in a particular way. People may fantasise about winning first prize in Lotto but only the delusional are convinced they will win, especially the ones that don't buy tickets.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:26:05 AM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Doctor Iliya Bluskov (Professor at University of Northern British Columbia)
>
>
>
> You seem to be putting your salvation in getting Match Fives. What you overlook to consider is that the three main factors that determine one set doing better than another is whether the full Pool is used, are the subsets duplicated and is the coverage maximized for the game being played. Thinking that your Covers will do better with often duplicate Comb Fives is delusional.

No, I am not thinking that my covers will do better. It is you who thinks that I think my covers will do better. There is a subtle difference that you ignore all the time. In fact, when I wrote my books I did not know about Mr. Colin Fairbrother's covers. Now that I know, I should give them due consideration; in fact, already did; unfortunately, nothing publishable, and my guess is, you are not entering the history as the great inventor of new revolutionary covers; you might enter it as the great abuser of a good man, a man of thought and study

>
>
>
> You accuse me of not making it known that I am concentrating on returns over a reasonable period, say one year which is false. Try to read my article titled -
>
>
>
> LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
>
> by Colin Fairbrother
>
> at http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
>
>
>
> and you will see this paragraph that has been there from the time the article was first put up in May 2012.
>
>
>
> "Most constructions will return the expected yield over a thousand or so draws but why wait 20 years when you can get that same return in 2 years?"
>
>
>
> This is consistent with what I have written from 2004.
>
>
>
> Dr Bluskov you have been playing in the devil's garden, strutting you stuff with the likes of Gail Howard and Ken Silver, relying on the prestige of your academic qualifications and University Professorship to flog two tawdry Lotto nonsense booklets and little old me has shot you down in flames with your parachute burning.

Well, that kind of language shows who I am dealing with. Using strong language to cover ignorance and mistakes might work in some circles, not in my world though. I speak mathematics, and mathematics is a precise science. It is Mr. Fairbrother who thinks mathematics can be twisted to fit his business. Comparison with the likes of Ken Silver and Gail Howard is, to put it mildly, laughable, but this is not what this thread is about. By the way, if you really believe you have something to say on the subject of lotto strategies, publish your findings, see how people like it, and what they say about it; do not constantly cite your site as if it is the only sourse of reliable information.

>
>
>
> All the talk about libel amounts to nothing when what I have written and will continue to write is true. I don't need to retract one word. How about you? Maybe you can say, "Sorry Colin, you were right and I was wrong; I simply let my intellectual arrogance get the better of me. Please forgive me, I beg you, please pretty please". Maybe that's a little over the top but you get the message.

Thanks for the suggestions; someone might need that kind of language soon, but I have the feeling it is not me.

>
>
>
> Have your students ever told you you don't listen?

Not really, are not they supposed to listen to me? I am joking, of course, I listen to my students when they come to me and discuss all kind of problems, but for mathematics, it is usually the other way around.

I wrote in this very thread that I had got a match 5 win see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/Ob60hvuAQR8J and that was June 14, 2003 and I got a lousy $1,317. The odds of getting that in a 6/44 Lotto game with 2 bonus numbers (at the time) were 1 in 32676. With me playing 18 lines per week I can expect only 1 in a lifetime.

Good for you, and this is about right, but let me ask you what happened to your yield during any 50 draws that include the 5-win? Was it still 26% or it went a bit up, something like over 100%? How does your proportionality "method" account for happenings like that?

>
>
>
> Moreover, I only need 1000 plays to prove that playing your Covers or Wheels gives inferior results for the match 3's and match 4's compared to my Partial Covers. According to you I should be doing it for millions of draws. That Professor is just plain balmy and throws into question why you are flogging your booklets without making that loud and clear.

Again, personal opinion of Mr. Colin Fairbrother. Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion. Not every opinion is correct. Lottery is not just 3-wins and 4-wins. There is a precise definition of yield (EV, expected value) in any game of chance, and it is not me who invented it. It is a fixed expectation if the game conditions are fixed. You definition is flawed, your yield formula depends on the number of draws, and supposedly depends on the beauty of your "system". I am sorry to inform you but 20 distinct tickets perform (in terms of yield, or expected return) just like any other set of 20 distinct tickets, system or no system. Systems and strategies just enhance the entertainment value of the experience; pretty much true in any form of gambling (except in some games which are considered a game of skill (such as poker)). The systems in my books have qualities attractive to some players, not necessarily all players. It is a product that some players find interesting, but I suggested many times: get one of my books and read it; I do not misrepresent the systems for something they are not as you think I do, but your quoted authors above do (and you can add yourself to that shortlist as well; you are misrepresenting your own system for something it is not; it seems you believe in it; I am not sure if Ken Silver and Gail Howard believed everything they said), and I do not hide any information about probabilities of winning a big prize, conditions etc. I like systems, because of less standard reasons, such as beauty in mathematical sense; the symmetries, the structure etc, which all makes them an interesting object of study. Systems can change the way wins are distributed over time, which could be a good thing for anyone who is looking for a change in their playing experience. There are people who seek systems, so there is a market. I can give you many reasons people find to use systems, based on my experience in answering reader's questions, but I will restrict myself to just a couple of examples.
1) Playing all 49 numbers in any way is a choice, if someone likes it, they should play it that way, and that is perfectly fine; your way too. Saying that this is better than everything else is laughable, and you should not be saying it...
2) A family collects all the birthdays and favorite numbers and they come up with, say, 12 numbers; they want to play them all. They also want to get something when, say, all 6 drawn numbers are within the set of their important numbers. What structure achieves that? A system, of course. It is good, but to say that this is better than everything else is laughable, I do not do it.
3) I hear this quite often: I run a syndicate at work, we play about $150, and most of us want to keep it going, but some get discouraged; especially when we have 5-6 draws without a win in a row. What do we do? Well, play a system, play the 163 combs system on all 49 numbers, you will always have a 3-win, something back, guaranteed, while waiting for something better. (The average of this system is three 3-wins, if no bigger prize is hit.) To say that this system is better than everything else is laughable, I do not do it.
4) Some people just like the idea of getting multiple wins, a burst of wins better than the occasional 3-win once in several draws, and they do not care much about the long periods between the wins; well, system gives you that; when you hit, you hit well. The higher the guarantee of the system, the bigger the assortment of prizes when there is a hit. To say that this is better than anything else is laughable, I do not do it.

Anyway, the fact remain that you are aggressively promoting your own "creation", which came into existence due to lack of essential knowledge; you seem oblivious to elementary probability facts. As I said, I am not bothered by what you are offering; there is a lot of rubbish out there, and there will be. People see through it sooner or later. My problem is, and you know it very well, your usage of my name and credentials in the way you use them, mostly by throwing all kind of garbage at my name. This is not acceptable business practice to begin with, and it is bad business ethics, but seemingly your knowledge of business ethics and practice does not spread further than your knowledge of mathematics and probabilities, so I guess, I am not expecting much of an improvement.

>
>
>
> With the odds for a match 5 so high it is not really relevant to the wins people normally get. Also inherent in your thinking is the belief that if the match 5's are factored in, your Covers or Wheels will do better than my Partial Covers. This is absurd as quite often these Partial Pool Covers or Wheels have repeat Comb Fives which means it will take longer to get a multiple match 5 hit.

So what exactly happens when we hit the juicy lines of the pay table? The yield jumps considerably, something that Colin Fairbrother wants to avoid commenting on at all costs, because this is something that does not fit his strategy very well, in fact, it eliminates any advantage that his set of lines might have at the moment. Playing two different system can be thought as of competition, a run, not over a distance but over a number of draws and in terms of yield. System A leads after the first few draws, but then system B hits well and takes the lead, then A catches up and so on. System A won over some short run, system B won over a longer run, then system A won again over even a longer run, but then B hit big again and took the lead etc, etc. That is the reality. At the end of the run, the two systems will have absolutely identical yield (as long as both systems have pairwise distinct combinations). The last statement seems to be beyond the understanding of Mr. Fairbrother.

Well, Mr. Fairbrother, same old eh? You keep beating around the same bush; let us compromise a bit, let us increase the number of draws; well, thank you, but your computation do not show anything, it is the same flawed argument, that uses your fuzzy idea of a yield. By the way, do you recall that this is exactly what I was claiming; the larger the sample of draws, the closer the yields of your selection of lines and any other selection of the same number of lines as long as all combinations are distinct? What happened to your big edge of 5% (written with big bold red letters on your page)? Predictably, it went down to 0.36%...
What is next: Indulge me with 500,000 draws? The only correct way to find the EV is to run all of the 77 combinations of the system through all of the ~14,000,000 draws, which will be the same as running one combinations and multiplying the result by 77, because, over all possible draw any particular combinations will have exactly the same number of hits: 6-win once, 5-win 258 times, 4-win 13545 times and 3-win 246820 times. How the combinations of your selection or the combinations of a system relate to each other is irrelevant, as long as they are distinct; each combination will hit exactly the same win distribution. Hint: One does not need to run any simulations over a huge number of draws, there are easy formulas to obtain the above numbers.

>
>
>
> You seem to confuse overall return with that for an individual playing the Lotto game in a particular way. People may fantasize about winning first prize in Lotto but only the delusional are convinced they will win, especially the ones that don't buy tickets.

I did not get this one, but anyway. I said it earlier: There are universally accepted truths, clear definitions and formulas that show the right way to compute yield and would erase any confusion from the mind of a normal person.
I could suggest going to your local library and picking a book on probability, before you start attacking the fundamentals. Do a bit of homework.
You could have been a bit more humble and diligent before announcing your "discoveries" to the world and promoting them on the account of a load of absolutely undeserved and groundless personal attacks. But you seem to recognize knowledge only from sources other than myself (I hope "sources" include something other than your own brain and experience), so I might dig something you would understand

I was trying to avoid getting into the mathematics here; it is readily available from many sources, but I guess, I will have to do it eventually, so I might stick around.

Good luck to all,
Iliya Bluskov

[nigel]

lot...@telus.net wrote:

<selective snippery>

>
> Again, personal opinion of Mr. Colin Fairbrother. Everyone is
> entitled to their own personal opinion. Not every opinion is correct.
> Lottery is not just 3-wins and 4-wins. There is a precise definition
> of yield (EV, expected value) in any game of chance, and it is not me
> who invented it. It is a fixed expectation if the game conditions are
> fixed.

That's the average expected return. Most players will get far less.
Perhaps a more useful measure is what players will get by way of returns
most of the time. If you don't have a 5-match, you don't get paid a very
small percentage of the 5-match prize, you get nothing.

Lotteries usually return something like 50% of ticket sales by way of
prizes. Most players will never achieve anything but a fraction of that
rate of return.

> I like
> systems, because of less standard reasons, such as beauty in
> mathematical sense; the symmetries, the structure etc, which all
> makes them an interesting object of study.

I'm not disputing the mathematical beauty of wheels (not systems, please
- we're English speakers) but is it true about the symmetry? I'm no
expert but it's my understanding that in the real world, the best wheel
for any particular guarantee is usually unbalanced, with some numbers
occurring more than others.

> Systems can change the way
> wins are distributed over time, which could be a good thing for
> anyone who is looking for a change in their playing experience. There
> are people who seek systems, so there is a market. I can give you
> many reasons people find to use systems, based on my experience in
> answering reader's questions, but I will restrict myself to just a
> couple of examples. 1) Playing all 49 numbers in any way is a choice,
> if someone likes it, they should play it that way, and that is
> perfectly fine; your way too. Saying that this is better than
> everything else is laughable, and you should not be saying it...

No, that shows a lack of awareness of gambling and strategies. Playing
all 49 numbers is like betting on all the horses in a race. It reduces
your chances of making a profit. If you don't understand, read
discussions of 'volatility' on gambling sites.

> 2) A
> family collects all the birthdays and favorite numbers and they come
> up with, say, 12 numbers; they want to play them all. They also want
> to get something when, say, all 6 drawn numbers are within the set of
> their important numbers. What structure achieves that? A system, of
> course. It is good, but to say that this is better than everything
> else is laughable, I do not do it.

If the lottery has a pari-mutuel structure, choosing birthday numbers is
a very poor strategy.

> 3) I hear this quite often: I run
> a syndicate at work, we play about $150, and most of us want to keep
> it going, but some get discouraged; especially when we have 5-6 draws
> without a win in a row. What do we do? Well, play a system, play the
> 163 combs system on all 49 numbers, you will always have a 3-win,
> something back, guaranteed, while waiting for something better. (The
> average of this system is three 3-wins, if no bigger prize is hit.)
> To say that this system is better than everything else is laughable,
> I do not do it.

Do you think the 163 combinations can ever be lowered? I know that some
people keep trying, but it seems to me very hard to prove mathematically
to be the minimum.

Evil Nigel

[Colin Fairbrother]

Not a good idea to make veiled threats against me Professor as in -

"Thanks for the suggestions; someone might need that kind of language soon, but I have the feeling it is not me."

If you want to sue me for libel - then do it.

At the moment you're just the nutty Professor to me - best to keep it that way.

As I have written before I have my program to run trials to back up the analysis calculations. I am quite capable of putting it online free - maybe I'll call it the Iliya Bluskov Lotto Cover or Wheel Tester and Debunker.

Simply denigrating my knowledge of probability is not enough Professor. I know enough for the task in hand. For anyone reading this thread who would like a short introduction or refresher of probability as it relates to Lotto have a look at my article -

Probability Primer or Refresher using Lotto Number Analysis and VBA or VB code
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ProbabilityTheoryForLotto.aspx

Colin Fairbrother

[Nick UK]

Sorry to repeat this but if you scroll down, the remedy is at the bottom of
this post..

Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother and his Professor, droned..

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..
(please scroll down)

Not a good idea to make veiled threats against me Professor as in -
"Thanks for the suggestions; someone might need that kind of language soon,
but I have the feeling it is not me."

If you want to sue me for libel - then do it.

At the moment you're just the nutty Professor to me - best to keep it that
way.

As I have written before I have my program to run trials to back up the
analysis calculations. I am quite capable of putting it online free - maybe
I'll call it the Iliya Bluskov Lotto Cover or Wheel Tester and Debunker.

Simply denigrating my knowledge of probability is not enough Professor. I
know enough for the task in hand. For anyone reading this thread who would
like a short introduction or refresher of probability as it relates to Lotto
have a look at my article -

Probability Primer or Refresher using Lotto Number Analysis and VBA or VB
code
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ProbabilityTheoryForLotto.aspx

Colin Fairbrother

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

On Friday, 17 January 2014 21:52:06 UTC+11, lot...@telus.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:26:05 AM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
>
> > Doctor Iliya Bluskov (Professor at University of Northern British
> > Columbia)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You seem to be putting your salvation in getting Match Fives. What you
> > overlook to consider is that the three main factors that determine one
> > set doing better than another is whether the full Pool is used, are the
> > subsets duplicated and is the coverage maximized for the game being
> > played. Thinking that your Covers will do better with often duplicate
> > Comb Fives is delusional.
>
>
>
> No, I am not thinking that my covers will do better. It is you who thinks
> that I think my covers will do better. There is a subtle difference that
> you ignore all the time. In fact, when I wrote my books I did not know
> about Mr. Colin Fairbrother's covers. Now that I know, I should give them
> due consideration; in fact, already did; unfortunately, nothing
> publishable, and my guess is, you are not entering the history as the
> great inventor of new revolutionary covers; you might enter it as the
> great abuser of a good man, a man of thought and study
>
>
> >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
> >
> >
>
> > You accuse me of not making it known that I am concentrating on returns
> > over a reasonable period, say one year which is false. Try to read my
> > article titled -
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE
>
> >
>
> > by Colin Fairbrother
>
> >
>
> > at http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> > and you will see this paragraph that has been there from the time the
> > article was first put up in May 2012.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "Most constructions will return the expected yield over a thousand or so
> > draws but why wait 20 years when you can get that same return in 2
> > years?"
>
> >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> > This is consistent with what I have written from 2004.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dr Bluskov you have been playing in the devil's garden, strutting you
> > stuff with the likes of Gail Howard and Ken Silver, relying on the
> > prestige of your academic qualifications and University Professorship to
> > flog two tawdry Lotto nonsense booklets and little old me has shot you
> > down in flames with your parachute burning.
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
>
> Well, that kind of language shows who I am dealing with. Using strong
> language to cover ignorance and mistakes might work in some circles, not
> in my world though. I speak mathematics, and mathematics is a precise
> science. It is Mr. Fairbrother who thinks mathematics can be twisted to
> fit his business. Comparison with the likes of Ken Silver and Gail Howard
> is, to put it mildly, laughable, but this is not what this thread is
> about. By the way, if you really believe you have something to say on the
> subject of lotto strategies, publish your findings, see how people like
> it, and what they say about it; do not constantly cite your site as if it
> is the only sourse of reliable information.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> > All the talk about libel amounts to nothing when what I have written and
> > will continue to write is true. I don't need to retract one word. How
> > about you? Maybe you can say, "Sorry Colin, you were right and I was
> > wrong; I simply let my intellectual arrogance get the better of me.
> > Please forgive me, I beg you, please pretty please". Maybe that's a
> > little over the top but you get the message.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestions; someone might need that kind of language soon,
> but I have the feeling it is not me.
>
>
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> > Have your students ever told you you don't listen?
>
>
>
> Not really, are not they supposed to listen to me? I am joking, of course,
> I listen to my students when they come to me and discuss all kind of
> problems, but for mathematics, it is usually the other way around.
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
> I wrote in this very thread that I had got a match 5 win see
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/Ob60hvuAQR8J
> and that was June 14, 2003 and I got a lousy $1,317. The odds of getting
> that in a 6/44 Lotto game with 2 bonus numbers (at the time) were 1 in
> 32676. With me playing 18 lines per week I can expect only 1 in a
> lifetime.
>
>
>
> Good for you, and this is about right, but let me ask you what happened to
> your yield during any 50 draws that include the 5-win? Was it still 26% or
> it went a bit up, something like over 100%? How does your proportionality
> "method" account for happenings like that?
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH (SNORE)..

SNORE

>
> 3) I hear this quite often: I run a syndicate at work, we play about $150,
> and most of us want to keep it going, but some get discouraged; especially
> when we have 5-6 draws without a win in a row. What do we do? Well, play a
> system, play the 163 combs system on all 49 numbers, you will always have
> a 3-win, something back, guaranteed, while waiting for something better.
> (The average of this system is three 3-wins, if no bigger prize is hit.)
> To say that this system is better than everything else is laughable, I do
> not do it.
>
> 4) Some people just like the idea of getting multiple wins, a burst of
> wins better than the occasional 3-win once in several draws, and they do
> not care much about the long periods between the wins; well, system gives
> you that; when you hit, you hit well. The higher the guarantee of the
> system, the bigger the assortment of prizes when there is a hit. To say
> that this is better than anything else is laughable, I do not do it.
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
> Anyway, the fact remain that you are aggressively promoting your own
> "creation", which came into existence due to lack of essential knowledge;
> you seem oblivious to elementary probability facts. As I said, I am not
> bothered by what you are offering; there is a lot of rubbish out there,
> and there will be. People see through it sooner or later. My problem is,
> and you know it very well, your usage of my name and credentials in the
> way you use them, mostly by throwing all kind of garbage at my name. This
> is not acceptable business practice to begin with, and it is bad business
> ethics, but seemingly your knowledge of business ethics and practice does
> not spread further than your knowledge of mathematics and probabilities,
> so I guess, I am not expecting much of an improvement.
>
>
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> > With the odds for a match 5 so high it is not really relevant to the
> > wins people normally get. Also inherent in your thinking is the belief
> > that if the match 5's are factored in, your Covers or Wheels will do
> > better than my Partial Covers. This is absurd as quite often these
> > Partial Pool Covers or Wheels have repeat Comb Fives which means it will
> > take longer to get a multiple match 5 hit.
>
>
>
> So what exactly happens when we hit the juicy lines of the pay table? The
> yield jumps considerably, something that Colin Fairbrother wants to avoid
> commenting on at all costs, because this is something that does not fit
> his strategy very well, in fact, it eliminates any advantage that his set
> of lines might have at the moment. Playing two different system can be
> thought as of competition, a run, not over a distance but over a number of
> draws and in terms of yield. System A leads after the first few draws, but
> then system B hits well and takes the lead, then A catches up and so on.
> System A won over some short run, system B won over a longer run, then
> system A won again over even a longer run, but then B hit big again and
> took the lead etc, etc. That is the reality. At the end of the run, the
> two systems will have absolutely identical yield (as long as both systems
> have pairwise distinct combinations). The last statement seems to be
> beyond the understanding of Mr. Fairbrother.
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let's indulge you by considering 55,000 plays in a 6/49 Lotto game where
> > the odds of getting a match 5 are 1 in 54,201. I am using the old UK
> > costs and payouts of £1 per line and £10 for a match 3, £56 for a match
> > 4 and £1500 for a match 5. Using the analysis in my previous post at -
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/vrB3rqJHbs0J
>
> >
> >
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> > we get the following prizes in a 6/49 Lotto game for 714 draws or 55,000
> > plays.
>
> >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
>
> > C(22,6,3,3)=77 (Uncovered 43.81%)
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 1 230 x 10 = £2300
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 4 110 x 40 = £4400
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 10 10 x 100 = £4400
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 20 0 x 200 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 1 21 x 56 = £1176
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 1 + 3 x 6 25 x 116 = £2900
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 2 + 3 x 12 3 x 232 = £696
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 3 + 3 x 8 0 x 304 = 0
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
> > Match 5 x 1 1 x 1500 = £1500
>
> >
>
> > Match 5 x 1 + 3 x 10 0 x 232 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 6 x 1 0 x ? = 0
>
> >
>
> > Total £13972
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
> > Yield or Percentage Return: 25.4%
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > My Partial Cover 77 lines (Uncovered 12.08%)
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 1 --------------276 x----10 = £2760
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 2 --------------233 x----20 = £4660
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
>
> > Match 3 x 3 ---------------60 x----30 = £1800
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 4 ----------------5 x----40 = £200
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 5 ----------------0 x----50 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 3 x 6 ----------------0 x----60 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 1 ---------------28 x----56 = £1568
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 1 22 x----66 = £1452
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 2 3 x----76 = £228
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 3 0 x----86 = 0
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
>
> > Match 4 x 1 + Match 3 x 4 0 x----96 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 2 0 x---112 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 2 + Match 3 x 1 0 x---122 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 4 x 2 + Match 3 x 2 0 x---132 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 5 x 1 ----------------1 x--1500 = 1500
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
>
> > Match 5 x 1 + Match 3 x 1 0 x--1510 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 5 x 1 + Match 3 x 2 0 x--1520 = 0
>
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
>
> > Match 5 x 1 + Match 3 x 3 0 x--1530 = 0
>
> >
>
> > Match 6 x 1 ----------------0 x-----? = 0
>
> >
>
> > Total £14,168
>
> >
>
> > Yield or Percentage Return: 25.76%
>
> >
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> > As expected there is only a couple of hundred quid between them in my
> > favour.
>
>
>
> Well, Mr. Fairbrother, same old eh? You keep beating around the same bush;
> let us compromise a bit, let us increase the number of draws; well, thank
> you, but your computation do not show anything, it is the same flawed
> argument, that uses your fuzzy idea of a yield. By the way, do you recall
> that this is exactly what I was claiming; the larger the sample of draws,
> the closer the yields of your selection of lines and any other selection
> of the same number of lines as long as all combinations are distinct? What
> happened to your big edge of 5% (written with big bold red letters on your
> page)? Predictably, it went down to 0.36%...
>
> What is next: Indulge me with 500,000 draws? The only correct way to find
> the EV is to run all of the 77 combinations of the system through all of
> the ~14,000,000 draws, which will be the same as running one combinations
> and multiplying the result by 77, because, over all possible draw any
> particular combinations will have exactly the same number of hits: 6-win
> once, 5-win 258 times, 4-win 13545 times and 3-win 246820 times. How the
> combinations of your selection or the combinations of a system relate to
> each other is irrelevant, as long as they are distinct; each combination
> will hit exactly the same win distribution. Hint: One does not need to run
> any simulations over a huge number of draws, there are easy formulas to
> obtain the above numbers.
>
>
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> > You seem to confuse overall return with that for an individual playing
> > the Lotto game in a particular way. People may fantasize about winning
> > first prize in Lotto but only the delusional are convinced they will
> > win, especially the ones that don't buy tickets.
>
>
>
> I did not get this one, but anyway. I said it earlier: There are
> universally accepted truths, clear definitions and formulas that show the
> right way to compute yield and would erase any confusion from the mind of
> a normal person.
>
> I could suggest going to your local library and picking a book on
> probability, before you start attacking the fundamentals. Do a bit of
> homework.
>
> You could have been a bit more humble and diligent before announcing your
> "discoveries" to the world and promoting them on the account of a load of
> absolutely undeserved and groundless personal attacks. But you seem to
> recognize knowledge only from sources other than myself (I hope "sources"
> include something other than your own brain and experience), so I might
> dig something you would understand
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

>
> I was trying to avoid getting into the mathematics here; it is readily
> available from many sources, but I guess, I will have to do it eventually,
> so I might stick around.
>
>
>
> Good luck to all,
>
> Iliya Bluskov
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> > Colin Fairbrother
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> >
>
> > On Wednesday, 15 January 2014 09:55:48 UTC+11, lot...@telus.net wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:37:50 AM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH (SNORE)..

>
> >
>
> >
> > > ONLY UNDER THE CONDITION THAT A 5- OR 6-WIN NEVER HAPPENS. (Oops,
> > > someone missed a condition; was that me or Mr. Fairbrother?) Can you
> > > absolutely discard this possibility in your computations? Do you
> > > really believe that repeating a false statement hundreds of times
> > > makes it true? What happens to your computations if you GET a 5-win?
> > > It rarely happens, OK, but it does! People play because 5-wins and
> > > 6-wins happen. It might not happen to you, but what if 100 people play
> > > 50 draws each? Would they have the same expected yield? No, because
> > > there will be 5-wins to factor, right? What if we go over larger
> > > sample? Perhaps, that is why people form syndicates to play. The
> > > expected yield per ticket is a constant which is the same for
> > > everyone, for every draw (if the payoff is fixed for 5-win and 6-win).
> > > Your "formula" gives you a convenient tool to promote your strategy,
> > > but it is flawed, mathematically incorrect, in an obvious way.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Anyway, you do not get it; I give up. You see, I am a teacher by
> > > trade, I deal with confusion every day, and I know it can be a very
> > > persistent condition. Publish a couple of more of your tables and let
> > > us close the topic. The damage is done; you do not seem to have items
> > > like "I am sorry" or "I am wrong" in your repertoire, so, best of luck
> > > with changing the universal truth to fit whatever you are trying to
> > > sell at your sites. There is no sense to refer you to other
> > > mathematicians or to the literature; you have no respect to authority;
> > > if you do not believe me, then you will not believe anyone else, I
> > > guess. Or, well, I forgot, "I am the odd doctor out".
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Iliya Bluskov
>
> >
>

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH (SOUND ASLEEP)..
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Uncovered in a 6/49 Lotto game for the C(22,6,3,3)=77 Cover is
> > > > 43.81% whereas in my partial cover it is only 12.08%. My prizes are
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Match 3 x 1 5 x 10 = £50
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Match 3 x 2 4 x 20 = £80
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Match 3 x 3 1 x 30 = £30
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Match 4 x 1 1 x 56 = £56
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >

BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Total £216
>
> >
>
> > >
> >
BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..
>
> > > >
>
> >
BLAH-BLAH-BLAH..

> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Yield or Percentage Return: 21.6%
>
> >
>
> > > > Colin Fairbrother

................................................................

To anyone still awake.

The above long--winded dribble is commonly known in RGL's free 'inner
circles' (as opposed to Fuhrer Fairbrother's chargeable 'inner circle') as..

FFF.. FUHRER FAIRBROTHER FATIGUE!

Alternatively, I can hear..

Aw!.. FFS!!!!!

RGL fatigue sufferers can visit here for instant relief..

http://trollsville.bravesites.com/
(updated)

[lot...@telus.net]

Mr. Fairbrother,
You are using strong words as usual, which is a strong sign that you are running out of reasonable arguments. See, I have written books om a well known strategy of playing; I do not try to sell anything by claiming this strategy is better than other strategies; it is you who does that; you are trying to sell your own strategy by claiming it is superior to everything else out there, and you are trying to sell yourself as an authority on the subject based on your absolutely unsupported claims, by using me and my books in your campaign. In the process, you are causing all kind of damage by the way you use my name, in a very disrespectful manner; smearing, calling names, throwing all kind of garbage; it is your choice; it is a sad choice and it is not a good strategy long term, but you are retired, you probably do not care. Anyway; I am trying to understand the reasons, but unless you tell us; it is difficult.

Now, you are pushing the issue of suing you for libel; I have never suggested that; this seems to be a part of a bullying strategy from your side with the intention to escalate the conflict beyond manageable state. Yes, it is tempting to put you in place, but it is too expensive to do it through the distance; there will be damages attached to it; however, given the fact that I do not make anything from these books, I would not be able to claim much damage, or business loss for that matter; in short, you are off the hook in this area; feel free to continue with the bad mouthing, you can use the f-word if you wish; I sense you already feel like it. The sad consequence is you are also trying to damage my academic name, again based on your own understanding what or what should not an academic do. See, I teach all kind of mathematics, including some combinatorics of gambling and lotteries, so, perhaps it is worth hearing my analysis on what is wrong with your justification, free of charge at that:-) The only pitch in my books is on the fact that some of the systems there are better than those published elsewhere, and better in just one characteristics, shorter for a fixed guarantee. Most of the other qualities I discuss are of aesthetic value. I am just comparing systems, and systems is the subject of my books, not a set of random combinations, so in a sense, I am not even your competitor. This is the only selling point; none of the rubbish that you can find elsewhere, and that you are trying to somehow associate with me. I even make it explicitly clear that, OK, some people actually might like a system with the same guarantee and more combinations, because it gives more shots at the Jackpot, and I then commented on that; perfectly fine with me. I have written my books because many people before me have tried to sell systems for something they are not. Just like you do with your "invention".

Note that I do not reject your approach to the play as being wrong or inferior or anything like that; it is a valid approach; you have your arguments why it is good (for you), maybe there will be some people who like it and try it. However, the way you try to sell it by throwing garbage at everything else, and by claiming it is superior to everything else, and the way you use my name to attract attention is plainly wrong. Again, if you do not see the difference between me and other authors, too sad. In a typical "Furher" style you dictate what is right and wrong; it is difficult to argue with you; I think everyone here knows that. Pure evil! I give up; I am just adding this material for the sane readers who might come to this place attracted by your outrageous title. As I tried to tell you several times, by using different wording and analogies, your claims have no ground in the science of probability and in gaming mathematics. Probability is a branch of mathematics which has everyday use, but it is a branch that often leaves people confused, there is a lot of misunderstanding, wrong conclusions, and fallacies which are based on poor understanding of the theory, quite often the mere basics of the theory. You, unfortunately make no exception.

Here it is how it is done. All you said so far is based on YOUR (very fragmented) knowledge, YOUR understanding, on YOUR simulations (no need for that; there are universally accepted methods to check the return on any dollar, in any game of chance). All the reference you provide for your "truths" is to YOUR OWN sites and articles there. Typical "Furher" style. "It is true, because I say so!" OK, someone might buy it that way. In my world, the approach is different; people study the universally accepted knowledge, then they check everything before it appears in print, proofread, referee and let a publication see the light only if it meets certain standard; my books have gone through that; as you can see, the process is somewhat longer than putting an article at a site you own.

In probability, we deal with a "sample space", which is the set S of all possible outcomes of an experiment, in the case of lottery, this is the set of all possible draws. An "event" E is just any subset of the sample space. The probability of this event is |E|/|S|, where, in the case of lottery,
|E| is the number of draws in which the event happens,
|S| is the number of all draws, 13983816, or C(49,6).

The following is the definition of a sample space from Wikipedia; note the "all possible" bit: "In probability theory, the sample space of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space)

Let us say, you play one ticket and the event is three of your numbers are within the 6 drawn. How do we compute the probability of that event? Well, we first have to answer the question of how many draws contain three of your numbers. There are C(6,3) triples in your ticket, and the remaining three can be any triple out of the remaining 49-6=43 numbers. There are C(43,3)=12341 such triples. The total number of draws that will give you a 3-win is then

C(6,3)*C(43,3)=246820.

Similarly, there are

C(6,4)*C(43,2)=13545 draws that will give you a 4-win,
C(6,5)*C(43,1)=258 draws that will give you a 5-win, and
C(6,6)*C(43,0)=1 draw that will give you a 6-win.

Then,
the probability P3 of a 3-win is C(6,3)*C(43,3)/C(49,6)=246820/13983816 ~0.017650403867
the probability P4 of a 4-win is C(6,4)*C(43,2)/C(49,6)=13545/13983816 ~0.000968619724
the probability P5 of a 5-win is C(6,5)*C(43,1)/C(49,6)=258/13983816 ~0.000018449900
the probability P6 of a 6-win is C(6,6)*C(43,0)/C(49,6)=1/13983816 ~0.000000071511

Now, to match it to your examples, we assume that a ticket costs a dollar and and the payoffs are fixed:
3-win $10, 4-win $56, 5-win $1500, and 6-win $4,000,000
(the 6-win is not fixed, only in some small lotteries, so we have to take something average, I assume it is around that for a lottery which has comparable other prizes).
The return on every dollar spent on the lottery is fixed (by this size 6-win) and it is computed by multiplying each probability by the corresponding payoff and adding the numbers together, that is, by the formula

P3(10)+P4(56)+P5(1500)+P6(4,000,000)=0.544465593214

This is the return on every dollar put in the lottery. Playing any collection of 20 distinct combinations one spends $20, and the expected return is 20(0.544465593214)=$10.89. FIXED NUMBER! Where is the advantage of YOUR system, really? As I said many times before, whether you play one ticket or two, or twenty, or 77, the expected return per ticket is the same, and the cumulative effect is just multiplying the number of tickets by the fixed expected return per ticket. The only digression from this rule happens if one plays repeating tickets and only if they all hit the jackpot; if the repetition is in lower tier prizes, there is no effect on the total return.

By the way, this computation explains why it makes more sense to play when the jackpot is higher. If the jackpot is $2,000,000, (just change 4 mil to 2 mil in the formula) the expected return per dollar would drop to ~$0.40, if the jackpot is $6,000,000 the expected return would be ~0.69; with jackpots of $11,000,000 or higher the expected return will be larger than $1, so positive expected value (but with that size of a jackpot, the probability of a split increases, because people buy more tickets than usual)

My attempts to get you into some reading before you post outrageous claims failed; fortunately, there are readable resources on the internet, so here is some reference:

If you have any doubts how the expected return on investment (ROI) is computed in any game of chance, check this huge site (not just about lottery):

http://wizardofodds.com/games/
http://wizardofodds.com/games/lottery/

The person who maintains the site is an expert in gambling mathematics, has been employed by the gambling industry as a consultant on games probabilities, answers questions from readers, runs a radio show on gaming probabilities in Vegas, reviews gambling books etc. He has posted computations about probabilities and return on over 150 different games, including lottery, by the books. Your definition of "more than a professor" in the area should be satisfied, I guess?

The definition of return from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_mathematics); the capitalization is mine:

"The predicted future gain or loss is called expectation or expected value and is the sum of the probability of EACH POSSIBLE OUTCOME of the experiment multiplied by its payoff (value)."

In conclusion, the knowledge on probabilities, gaming mathematics, and return on investment will not change, just because one person does not understand it (or pretend so...).
Iliya Bluskov

[Nick UK]

Just like the Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother, 'Professor' (hmmmm?) Iliya
Bluskov dribbled..

<snip the fkn lot>

With that amount of boring, tedium ad-nausea lottery 'probability' shit, I
am now convinced that the so-called 'Professor' Iliya Bluskov and Colin (the
Fuhrer) Fairbrother, are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON!

Prove me wrong Fairbrother!
Prove me wrong Bluskov!

If you are two different people, then you both need mental assistance -
immediately!

Nick UK.

[nigel]

Nick UK wrote:

> Just like the Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother, 'Professor' (hmmmm?) Iliya
> Bluskov dribbled..
>
> <snip the fkn lot>
>
> With that amount of boring, tedium ad-nausea lottery 'probability' shit,
> I am now convinced that the so-called 'Professor' Iliya Bluskov and
> Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother, are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON!

They're arguing from different points of view. Professor Bluskov is
arguing for taking the long-term average. Colin is arguing for what
happens in the vast majority of cases and optimising for the the number
of 3-matches.

Given a very large number of tickets, the results of the two approaches
becomes indistinguishable.

> Prove me wrong Fairbrother!
> Prove me wrong Bluskov!
>
> If you are two different people, then you both need mental assistance -
> immediately!

Given the state of help for schizophrenics, it would be scarier if they
were the same person.

> Nick UK.

I've just been spammed by someone flogging a lottery system by Professor
Iliya Bluskov which allegedly increases your chances by 7000 odd
percent, guarantees you a win every draw and results in more money than
you'd know how to spend. Presumably those claims wouldn't be endorsed by
the Professor Bluskov who is posting here.

Evil Nigel

[Colin Fairbrother]

I am well aware of unscrupulous tactics used in unmoderated newsgroups such as always trying to put one's opponent on the defensive, painting a false picture of their general ignorance, ascribing viewpoints not held etc. As far as direct dialogue is concerned I draw the line when nazi terminology is introduced such as a misspelt "Furher". In Usenet when somebody sinks to using Nazi references it is generally considered they have lost the argument and they should be ignored from then on. See -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Previous to Bluskov posting in this thread I thought of him as being a bit flaky and quirky but from what I have read in this thread I now regard him as being decidedly stupid as well. I suppose a bit like a savant that can give you the square root of a large number quicker than you can key it into a calculator.

I suppose in my mind having grown up in an era where Bertrand Russell appeared in one on one discussions on TV there is a standard I associate with people highly qualified in mathematics. Any of Bertrand Russell's general writings (see http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/brtexts.html) are a pleasure to read; the same cannot be said of Bluskov.

Bluskov is well aware that I promote Partial Covers with payable subsets not repeated, full Pool used and Coverage maximised and that I don't disparage Random Selections, which I regard as second best with a high and consistent Coverage within 1% or so.

The designs promoted by Bluskov are not really his (deceit, deceit) and for those errantly applied to Lotto the guarantee in the lowest number of lines overwhelmingly is held by others. See -

Prize Guarantee same as the Match: -
http://www.ccrwest.org/cover.html

Prize Guarantee different to the Match: -
http://www.weefs-lottosysteme.de/systeme,en.htm

Bluskov feigns an unawareness of why I should criticise him when he knows full well that I regard as disgusting his use of a Doctorate and Professorship to pedal to the gullible and naive a deceitful Lotto concoction that far from improving one's chances of success in the short term actually worsens them and for the most part produces results inferior to Random Selections.

Bluskov bemoans that my writings have had an effect on his academic reputation among his peers. I believe his peers have enough nonce and intelligence to form their own opinion. All I have done is brought it to their attention and steered them towards topics worth looking into.

Bluskov would have us believe that he wants Lotto players to use Lotto Systems because of their "aesthetic value". What planet is he on? Lotto players use a system in expectation of getting more wins more often or getting bigger wins without necesarily understanding this is less often. The licensed people publicising his booklets go way beyond that presenting the designs he flogs as being the magic elixir for the road to riches.

My knowledge of probability is perfectly adequate for what I take on and is completely conventional. Prior to analysing a set of numbers played in my own program by coverage against all the possible combinations applicable to the Pool, Pick and Guarantee I did test runs from my own program. If we consider a Wheel of 20 lines this can be tested for 10 or 20 runs for 1,000 plays or 50 draws. We can also extrapolate in an analysis of the various prize groups by multiplying the probability by the simulated draws required to reach comparable results. Bluskov takes the insane viewpoint that to do that is not valid and it should be done for millions of trials or draws so that hopefully first prize can be factored in. Anyone familiar with testing Wheels knows this is bunkum.

The gratuitous lesson in probability (yawn, yawn) was completely unnecessary and once again motivated to deceive by painting me as a complete novice. I'm always wary of examples that wander off the subject and rather than making it easier for the general reader to understand, actually complicate it. This is the hallmark of a poor teacher. The analogy to a Lotto game where the few lines are pitted against usually millions of possibilities and usually result in no wins is not addressed.

I am well aware of Michael Shackleford, The Wizard of Odds and have previously given links to his site in relation to another subscriber to this newsgroup who I will not mention. I rather liked and agreed with his assessment of "Those who sell these systems are the present day equivalent of the 19th century snake oil salesmen". Lauding a non-applicable guarantee for a lessor Pool than the Lotto game being played places you firmly within that category.

Lotto players have a different perspective than Lottery operators, which you fail to grasp. Over say a year a player spends 20 bucks or so per week on Lotto and hopefully gets a few bucks back. The overwhelming majority buy Quick Picks or Random Selections which is OK by me and if they started using designs promoted by Bluskov et al in the main they would notice not getting back as much they used to. Others, like myself and only spending 12 bucks and occasionally 24 take satisfaction in playing a set of numbers that give the best possible chance for a win. So, even though it's small change I smiled at my win of $38.45 last Saturday and $34.50 a fortnight ago on the 4/1/14. Working out what I spend over the year with what I have got back and even though it is negative it is still my YIELD or PERCENTAGE RETURN and perfectly understood by any player.

I recommend to readers the post that I continue to update titled -
DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:30:34 AM UTC-8, nigel wrote:
> lot...@telus.net wrote:
>
>
>
> <selective snippery>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Again, personal opinion of Mr. Colin Fairbrother. Everyone is
>
> > entitled to their own personal opinion. Not every opinion is correct.
>
> > Lottery is not just 3-wins and 4-wins. There is a precise definition
>
> > of yield (EV, expected value) in any game of chance, and it is not me
>
> > who invented it. It is a fixed expectation if the game conditions are
>
> > fixed.
>
>
>
> That's the average expected return. Most players will get far less.
>
> Perhaps a more useful measure is what players will get by way of returns
>
> most of the time. If you don't have a 5-match, you don't get paid a very
>
> small percentage of the 5-match prize, you get nothing.
>
>
>
> Lotteries usually return something like 50% of ticket sales by way of
>
> prizes. Most players will never achieve anything but a fraction of that
>
> rate of return.

I agree. Here is an excerpt of my book:

Now, how difficult is to be a big winner? Let us assume that the lottery is a fair game of chance. Let us assume that a ticket costs a dollar and you (or your syndicate) play 10 tickets 100 times per year (this will approximately be the case if your lottery has two draws per week). This means you (or your group) spend about a $1,000 per year on lotto tickets. Now, to win a $1,000,000 jackpot, you have to be ready to wait some period of time in the range of 2,000 years (recall that the lottery returns just about 50% of the money that goes into it). The reality is: It might not happen to you (or your syndicate). Now, let us say, you play with the same sum for 40 years. The chance that you will win the one million jackpot during that time will be 40/2000=1/50 or just about 2%. In other words, for one big win over a lifetime of playing, there must be 49 small losers who will pay for it. When I say "small" I mean it relatively; there will be many small wins that will partially cover the cost of playing for the small losers; one could end up being a winner even without winning jackpots along the way, hitting, say a (5+1)-win, or several 5-wins over the years. I should point out that the above computation is quite an approximation on what could happen in reality. There are several factors that will have to be taken into account if we want to precisely evaluate how difficult is to win a jackpot and how long the "waiting period" will be for it to happen on average, given that you play a fixed amount each draw. A precise computation is impossible, due to these additional factors. First of all, we did not factor the small wins which will come along the way and which you will probably put in the play to partially finance your game. The precise computations will also depend on how your lottery distributes the money for the different tier prizes. Another, very important factor will be the size of the jackpot. In fact, much larger than $1,000,000 jackpots happen on a regular basis, and although this does not significantly affect the "waiting period", it certainly affects the reward if it does happen. In any case, the point to keep in mind is: It is difficult to be a jackpot winner.

>
>
>
> > I like
>
> > systems, because of less standard reasons, such as beauty in
>
> > mathematical sense; the symmetries, the structure etc, which all
>
> > makes them an interesting object of study.
>
>
>
> I'm not disputing the mathematical beauty of wheels (not systems, please
>
> - we're English speakers) but is it true about the symmetry? I'm no
>
> expert but it's my understanding that in the real world, the best wheel
>
> for any particular guarantee is usually unbalanced, with some numbers
>
> occurring more than others.

True, but still... Most of the record breaking wheels are based on some clever combinatorial construction, so parts of the wheel might still have nice structure within, even when overall balance is not present; then the way these parts are combined might have been done in some symmetric manner; I have many examples. For some parameters, the record breaking wheels were generated by computer, based on some clever optimization algorithm; the beauty lies in the algorithm, and in the power of that algorithm.

>
>
>
> > Systems can change the way
>
> > wins are distributed over time, which could be a good thing for
>
> > anyone who is looking for a change in their playing experience. There
>
> > are people who seek systems, so there is a market. I can give you
>
> > many reasons people find to use systems, based on my experience in
>
> > answering reader's questions, but I will restrict myself to just a
>
> > couple of examples. 1) Playing all 49 numbers in any way is a choice,
>
> > if someone likes it, they should play it that way, and that is
>
> > perfectly fine; your way too. Saying that this is better than
>
> > everything else is laughable, and you should not be saying it...
>
>
>
> No, that shows a lack of awareness of gambling and strategies. Playing
>
> all 49 numbers is like betting on all the horses in a race. It reduces
>
> your chances of making a profit. If you don't understand, read
>
> discussions of 'volatility' on gambling sites.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2) A
>
> > family collects all the birthdays and favorite numbers and they come
>
> > up with, say, 12 numbers; they want to play them all. They also want
>
> > to get something when, say, all 6 drawn numbers are within the set of
>
> > their important numbers. What structure achieves that? A system, of
>
> > course. It is good, but to say that this is better than everything
>
> > else is laughable, I do not do it.
>
>
>
> If the lottery has a pari-mutuel structure, choosing birthday numbers is
>
> a very poor strategy.

I agree, playing the numbers 1-31 will generally bring lower payoff, unfortunately these numbers cannot be discarded completely, because then one might have long waiting periods between the draws when all 6 numbers are in the range 32-49...

>
>
>
> > 3) I hear this quite often: I run
>
> > a syndicate at work, we play about $150, and most of us want to keep
>
> > it going, but some get discouraged; especially when we have 5-6 draws
>
> > without a win in a row. What do we do? Well, play a system, play the
>
> > 163 combs system on all 49 numbers, you will always have a 3-win,
>
> > something back, guaranteed, while waiting for something better. (The
>
> > average of this system is three 3-wins, if no bigger prize is hit.)
>
> > To say that this system is better than everything else is laughable,
>
> > I do not do it.
>
>
>
> Do you think the 163 combinations can ever be lowered? I know that some
>
> people keep trying, but it seems to me very hard to prove mathematically
>
> to be the minimum.

I try not to think:-) Some people thought the record cannot be improved when it stood at 174 combinations, still, it moved slowly to 163. I do not think there are many people who put consistent efforts to prove minimality at this point; but it is a known problem; it is mentioned in CRC Handbook of Combinatorial Designs, the most comprehensive reference book on designs.
Iliya Bluskov

>
>
>
> Evil Nigel

[lot...@telus.net]

Mr. Fairbrother,
Exactly, as I predicted, you are running out of reasonable arguments and bringing the weapons of personal attacks, nothing new here; constantly trying to undermine my books; avoiding to address whatever reasonable arguments I submit to your attention. Never mind, I am an educator and I try; you used many facts related to me and my books to promote yourself; and you continue doing so by using the materials from this discussion in the same twisted and opportunistic ways as before, throwing all kind of unchecked claims and irrational opinions born and residing in your imagination only, with all kind of negative connotation with the hope to distract the readers from focusing on your flawed strategy, the same strategy that prompted you to start abusing my name. If you look at your post, the only addressing of the problems with the presentation of your strategy that you have done so far is the type: I am right because I am right and because I say so at my site; in my own pages and in my own simulations; I do not care if this fits in any probability and gaming theory; whoever says I am wrong is stupid etc. etc. Well, you are alone mister, look around...

Perhaps, there is a good reason to avoid commenting on the links I provided, right? Like ignoring absolutely everything that does not quite support your strategy, and that means pretty much any serious probability argument; even Michael Shackleford, The Wizard of Odds, is not clear enough for you. Why so? Because he gives a computation of the return exactly as I explained several times here and I even tried to present it with examples simpler than the lottery.

There is a reason why the return is defined as it is defined; the return in a game of chance is independent on how long the player plays and how the player plays, it only depends on the rules of the game. In reality, the return on a ticket in any particular lottery often depends on things such as the payoff structure of the lottery, in particular which tiers are pari-mutuel and which are not, the way the jackpot is set up - is there rollovers, what is the cap etc; and also on how people play: do they trace numbers and play hot numbers more or they prefer cold numbers which "are due to hit", whether they play birthdays and patterns, etc., many things that can affect the return of a ticket, but once all of the factors are taken into account, the return of any particular ticket is a fixed constant depending on the parameters of the draw, but a fixed constant for that particular draw nevertheless. Claiming that your N combinations perform better than any other N combinations is exactly the con artist way of selling any type of strategy. You have even computed that your N combinations perform 5% better than other N ticket selections. 5% is a significant edge in any game of chance. Even casinos offer games with edge smaller than that. You believe you have figured it all? And no one before you has not even noticed it? Naive, Mr Fairbrother! You somehow fail to understand where your argument fails. Your "proportionality" arguments fail to address the uniqueness portion of the definition of return; the fact that it should be independent of the number of plays and it should not depend on how you combine your tickets. Basically, if you really do not see the fallacy behind the "proportionality" argument, then it is OK; you will not be the first who messed up on probabilities, but if you know the basics and still claim what you claim, then you must be a con artist, no different than many others before you; your contribution to knowledge is nothing but learning how to cook the book, so to say. When the return depends on the number of trials and it depends on which part of the winning table of the set of lines is explored, then you can, of course, get any result you want, which you invariably do at your sites.

I will give you another example; I hope it is not difficult to understand. I mentioned that computing the average return after each possible draw (irrelevant of how all the draws are generated) and comparing the performance of 20 lines of, say 4 if 4 guarantee system on 10 numbers, and your 20 lines will show variance: at some points your 20 lines will have higher return, at some points the 20 lines of the system will have higher return; at some points these returns will be equal. After the last draw is generated, the return will be equal, by reasons I already explained many times here. Here is an extreme example of "cooking the book", which still shows at the end that both ways have the same return over all possible draws. We will generate all possible draws, but we will first generate all of the 6-tuples contained in the 10 numbers of the system, there are C(10,6)=210 such 6-tuples. The system will have a sequence of large multiple hits, with 20 jackpots within the first 210 trials of our experiment, and will show tremendous return, while your 20 lines will have the occasional 3-win here and there, but nothing essential yet. The result is, the system will show tremendous advantage over this first 210 draws, and then it will maintain this advantage almost until the last draw (#13983816). After the last draw, the return will be identical. Now your cooking of the book consists of ignoring the juicy lines of the pay table of the system, saying that these are rare occurrences and therefore should not be taken into account; the result is, you produce scores that favor your system. How do you know that over tremendously small (compared to the number of all possible draws sample), say 1000 draws, the system will not hit one of the juicy payoff lines; just because these rarely happen? What you say in your arguments is that every time the system is played over 1000 draws (or for every person who chooses that system and plays it over 1000 draws), we should only look at the lowest payoffs, because the others rarely happen? Well, how convenient, for whatever you promote... Unfortunately, your argument will not withstand any scrutiny from the mathematical community and from a broader community as well. I have already given you many reasons why your argument is not applicable. Some people might buy your arguments; you have achieved certain level of sophistication, which is higher than the level of some 5-10% of all players; pretty much everyone plays a ticket or two at some point. The fact that you involved my name in all this is quite unfortunate; you probably hoped it will be more beneficial than it actually turned out to be.

I gave you an example with white and black balls that clearly showed the flaws of your proportionality argument; you avoid commenting on anything that does not fit into your model, and just keep posting your flawed/biased/cooked "simulations". Here is another example for you: A 100% return system to play the roulette: Let, say the European type, with one zero and numbers 1-36. How do we compute the return on, say, betting a dollar on a number? (The roulette pays $36 if you hit your number; if the outcome is zero, the roulette collects all bets). Here is the correct computation of the expected return: In the sample space of all outcomes, you will win once $35 dollars ($36 minus the dollar of your bet) and will lose 36 times (every time a number other than your chosen number appears, including the zero). This means that on every 37 dollars you bet, you will get back $36 on average, so your expected return on a dollar is 36/37~$0.97. Your proportionality argument will say: 0 happens rarely, so it should be ignored; so if I bet a dollar on a number, the probability of the ball landing on my number is 1/36 ($36); thus my expected return is (1/36)*36=1$ on every dollar I bet. Nice, eh? Your arguments in favor of "your optimized lines" are exactly the same type; somewhat hiding behind the large number of lottery possibilities, but nevertheless, the same type. You keep pointing out that the wheels have conditions, but fail to realize that the performance of "your lines" depends on a condition as well, namely the condition "a large win never happens"; well, this is quite a strong condition/statement, do not you think?

When I came to this thread, I mentioned that whatever argument you throw against me, will have no weight coming from a person who tries to sell a "5% improved strategy" at his site. Also people who have the time to read and check the facts about the provider of such strategy will unavoidably notice some deep contradictions in the writings of the said self-promoter, just like I did. Here is what Mr Fairbrother claims at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/M_UH3Maky3U[1-25-false]

in the last item of his list/ad called "7 Golden Rules of Lotto"

To summarize, use the full pool, don't repeat payable subsets and
maximize coverage of the winning Fives or Sixes for the lowest paying
subset. Sets of numbers to play where the above criteria have been
applied are available at http://LottoToWin.com for a modest $5.00
subscription per year. The improvement is only about 5% at most on
Random Selections but can be massively more compared to System plays
(all combinations for a reduced Pool) or Covers or Wheels based on a
reduced Pool and with heavy repetition of the paying subsets.

At his site we see the big article title "Simply the Best Lotto Play Sets to Maximize your Winnings!" The page title is "LottoToWin maximizes scientifically your Lotto winnings". As it is probably clear from all of my posts so far, I fail to see any maximizing, while the science employed is quite rudimentary and ill applied.

At another page,

http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

we see the article title "Informative, honest, in depth articles on Lotto and whether other than through sheer luck the odds can be bettered." Honest, perhaps... Does not this title suggest that the odds are fixed and can only be beaten by luck? How come a person who has always claimed that odds (and therefore the return) cannot be improved by any strategy suddenly starts selling a strategy improving the return by (well, modest, according to him, but not so by any gambling standard...) 5%? How come a person who generously use the term con artist for pretty much everyone else suddenly starts offering something which is easily deciphered by elementary scrutiny as a pure con artistry?

As you noticed many years ago, the lottery strategies were missold by either "predictionists" (who claim the pool of 49 numbers can be narrowed down to a smaller selection based on some kind of prediction, analysing previous draws etc.) or "odds improvers" (those who claim their strategy improves the odds). You seem to be now openly in the second category... plus you picked the wrong person to pick on: I do not talk about improving the odds in any place in my books; except these two statements, quote: "Players like the fact that playing with a system increases the chances of winning. This comes with a price, of course: The price of purchasing more than just one ticket." and the second one: "The odds (or probability, or chance) of hitting the jackpot are the same for any particular ticket. A system contains several tickets, so the chance of winning the jackpot increases with the number of tickets played, but so do the expenses." Compare with the titles of your articles and pages. I do not talk about "improving the odds" and do not use the term "return" either. Maybe you have already figured out why; because the return on a ticket is fixed by the conditions of the lottery; I do not claim I can change that by a strategy.

Again, I do not reject your strategy; you like it, fine; just the way you try to sell it. It is OK to play that way; it is OK to play ANY way, as far as I am concerned. By the way, here is a question for you. How many combinations can one generate on all 49 numbers so that not even a pair is repeated? (that fits your idea of playing and it is an interesting object.)

I should add for your information that I was fully aware about the works of all of the mentioned names in this thread and his pages, and many more; such as Gail Howard, Ken Silver etc. I was also aware that none of these books or pamphlets can withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community, so I was absolutely careful in checking every statement in my book, and in using external help from very qualified readers, to make sure that every statement is perfectly correct from logical and mathematical point of view; to make sure that my book does not have even a trace of resemblance to the outrageous claims other authors before me used to misrepresent and missell lottery wheels. That is why I felt perfectly comfortable to put my real name and credentials on the front cover of my book. During the 12 years since the first edition of my book was published, it has been seen by people from the academia, analyzed and scrutinized; no one found flaws or unsupported claims, something that cannot be said about the books of the above mentioned authors. There are long reports on falacies found in the books of Gail Howard, for example. Nothing was found in my books. Still you try to smear my name with your claims, most likely based on insufficient knowledge of probabilities and game theory, but also on desire to sell your own flawed product, where the flaws also come from the lack of knowledge. Your attacks are based on what you imagine to be written in my books, but you do not have any of them... You are just speculating. You know, if I were you, I would just say I am sorry, then I will retract my posts and take down my sites. But this requires a lot of courage; I doubt it is within your power. So I am here to rant about it; with some very slim hope of educating you a bit, at least; you have not been very perceptive so far; anyway, cannot do much else.

You keep repeating the fact that systems are not invented by me, but you fail to notice that I never claimed so; in my books, I explain how I became interested and what exactly my contributions are. You also keep repeating that some systems from my books can be found in repositories. I have already addressed this, and it is well-addressed in my books as well, but just a couple of facts that might not be so well-known, except to those who I will inexplicitly mention here. I have made many improvements and have presented the systems in a way which is helpful to those who like to use them. There are systems which can still only be found in my books. When I started publishing systems, there were no repositories; computers had this monochrome screens and DOS was the "Windows"; you probably remember these times and earlier. If you have the opportunity to interview all those who submitted coverings to these repositories, and if they were honest about it, you might be surprised to learn that some of the coverings there came directly from my books, and not the other way around; others came from papers written by me or by me and coauthors. Go to Dan Gordon's repository and check the names there; then check my papers; but that is not all; I have cooperated with more than half of the contributors there, exchanged information, inspired research, sent them papers, explained constructions etc. There is a number of people who contributed to the knowledge on systems and some of the classical systems are over a century old; there is a very small number of record breaking systems in my books which were not constructed by me, but found by other people, our contemporaries; appropriate acknowledgements are given, unlike what happens at these repositories. Anyway, I am not going to go deeper than that. You have safe-proclaimed yourself as the saviour of the world from the evil of lotto systems which do not use the entire pool of numbers, and from whoever supposedely "promote" those systems, at least according to your mildly(?) confused mind. If it is a matter of survival for you, good luck with it! I will leave the domination of this realm to you. Good luck to all followers. You are a born winner, warrior. Quiet retirement is not in your plans, I guess? How do you find world dominance? Still not too late, go for it! Unfortunately, I have dealt with people like you before, and I know my chances and probabilities. Time to let it go.
Good luck everyone,
Iliya Bluskov

[lot...@telus.net]

>
> > With that amount of boring, tedium ad-nausea lottery 'probability' shit,
>
> > I am now convinced that the so-called 'Professor' Iliya Bluskov and
>
> > Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother, are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON!
>
>
>
> They're arguing from different points of view. Professor Bluskov is
>
> arguing for taking the long-term average. Colin is arguing for what
>
> happens in the vast majority of cases and optimising for the the number
>
> of 3-matches.

CF's system is a set of combinations that have two properties:
1) involve all 49 numbers
2) the combinations are as apart as possible (up to 8 combinations one can play without even repeating a number; up to 72 combinations one can play without even repeating a pair.

What I say in my book is that a system can change the way wins are distributed over time. His system gives small wins comparatively often. Other system can do other things; provide a burst of wins, or give a steady stream of wins if the condition of the system is met. Each way of playing can have a long stretch of not hitting anything, unless a comparatively large system is played that always guarantee something (like the 163 combinations for 3 if 6 guarantee). The argument is not about different views on return, because I do not talk about return in my books. The problem is that Mr. Fairbrother promotes his system as one improving the return by up to 5% compared to other ways of playing with the same number of combinations, including any of the systems in my books, which is just utter nonsense. His short return computation is flawed; his 5% advantage comes from cooking the books, by always picking a part of the sample space that suits his strategy. Let me ask: Is it true that no matter what 50 draws are played, and no matter how many times 50 draws are played, a system with 77 combinations will always miss a 5-win? If this is true, then his computations are correct and I am a pink penguin... That is how he gets his 5% advantage. Is it the correct way to compute return? It is not. I told him why and I told him what the correct way is, and I send him to several places where he can check it (not to my site, mind you). Did he get it? Not really. Is it OK to look only at the bottom of the Winning Possibilities Table and absolutely ignore all the juicy wins that happen less often, especially in claims about return? According to Mr. Fairbrother, it is. Why? Because this fits his claims perfectly. Suppose we play 50 draws many times; there will be sequences with high return, because there will be 5-wins there, and there is no law that you will have to wait years, it might happen in the first trial. This will change the overall return of the system anyway. Do we just scratch these to please Mr. Fairbrother? Sure, that is what he dictates. And do not even try to argue with him, because he will send you to the Truth, to his sites, that is. It is all there, laid out with the simulations and what not. Mr. Fairbrother and his flawed strategy was not a problem for me; I did not care what he was selling and how, until I figured out how he uses my name to sell his false claims, by presenting me as a false claims promoter; hypocrisy at its best. Anyway, I am way out of my league here; time to go...
Iliya Bluskov

>
>
>
> Given a very large number of tickets, the results of the two approaches
>
> becomes indistinguishable.

True.

>
> > Nick UK.
>
>
>
> I've just been spammed by someone flogging a lottery system by Professor
>
> Iliya Bluskov which allegedly increases your chances by 7000 odd
>
> percent, guarantees you a win every draw and results in more money than
>
> you'd know how to spend. Presumably those claims wouldn't be endorsed by
>
> the Professor Bluskov who is posting here.

True. What is new here, really? Apparently, Mr. Fairbrother is not the only one who tries to make a buck on the account of my name and credentials. I have a longer list of perpetrators; some went out of business, others are still trying. Internet age, integrity seems to be a forgotten word.

An old trick though, mentioning the percentages but not mentioning the price of the increase; just play 71 combinations instead of one and you get your chances increased by 7000%.

>
>
>
> Evil Nigel

[nigel]

nigel wrote:

> read discussions of 'volatility' on gambling sites.

Sadly the Wizard of Odds doesn't have a decent discussion of volatility
on his site. There seems to be an acknowledgement that low volatility is
a good thing when you have a system giving you an advantage over house
edge (in his discussion of Kelly, for example), but he leaves it unsaid
what the effects of volatility are when the house has the advantage :(

BTW, does anyone else remember our local 'Wizard of Odds', Dick Adams?

Evil Nigel

[Colin Fairbrother]

Let's summarize what Bluskov is admitting -

1 It doesn't matter what set of numbers you play whether it be Random Selections, a set with a guarantee for a lesser Pool or a set using the full Pool, with no duplicate paying subsets and coverage maximised, they will all give returns where one has no advantage over the other.

2 The Covers or Wheels he promotes in his booklets have no advantage over any other set of distinct numbers for the same number of lines. The reason for using these Wheels or Covers is because they have a property that if they were used in for the most part non-existent Lotto games they would guarantee a prize; this guarantee does not apply to the Lotto game being actually played. This property has a niceness that should be admired for its intrinsic mathematical beauty. If you have 10 lucky numbers just bung them in wherever you like in your lines played - it will make no difference.

3 The people he licenses to use his name and professional position to sell his Lotto booklets are not restricted in whatever outrageous claims they make.

So, the next time you buy tickets do it the simplest way by buying Quick Picks. Come to think of it I've never objected to playing Quick Picks.

My grand European tour awaits me.

Colin Fairbrother

[nigel]

Colin Fairbrother wrote:

> Let's summarize what Bluskov is admitting -
>
> 1 It doesn't matter what set of numbers you play whether it be Random
> Selections, a set with a guarantee for a lesser Pool or a set using
> the full Pool, with no duplicate paying subsets and coverage
> maximised, they will all give returns where one has no advantage over
> the other.

Given a sufficiently long period of time and a sufficiently large number
of tickets, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

> 2 The Covers or Wheels he promotes in his booklets have no advantage
> over any other set of distinct numbers for the same number of lines.
> The reason for using these Wheels or Covers is because they have a
> property that if they were used in for the most part non-existent
> Lotto games they would guarantee a prize; this guarantee does not
> apply to the Lotto game being actually played.

Honestly, do you really think that's what he's saying?

> This property has a
> niceness that should be admired for its intrinsic mathematical
> beauty.

Do you think there's no beauty in combinatorics? What about the 163
ticket wheel guaranteeing a prize in a 6/49 lottery - don't you think
its construction is an object of beauty?

> If you have 10 lucky numbers just bung them in wherever you
> like in your lines played - it will make no difference.

I don't know whether he covers it in his books, but he accepts some sets
of numbers (eg all birthday numbers) can be poorer than others.

> 3 The people he licenses to use his name and professional position to
> sell his Lotto booklets are not restricted in whatever outrageous
> claims they make.

Do you have proof that he licenses his name and professional position to
the charlatans? How much do they pay him for such usage?

One of my pieces of fiction has been stolen, and the thief has posted
the story on an internet site as their own work. I have so far been
unable to get the site to credit me as the author or remove the work.
Does that mean I've licensed my work?

> So, the next time you buy tickets do it the simplest way by buying
> Quick Picks. Come to think of it I've never objected to playing Quick
> Picks.

Why buy Quick Picks when, with a little research into your target
lottery, you can do better.

> My grand European tour awaits me.

My breath remains unheld.
>
> Colin Fairbrother

Evil Nigel

[Nick UK]

<Comments embedded below>

Colin (the Fuhrer) Fairbrother dribbled..

> I am well aware of unscrupulous tactics used in unmoderated newsgroups

> such as.. <snip the boring guff>

What he really means is what he has said about newsgroups in general..
example..

> Generally, Forums on the Web are a mixed bunch and if allowed are usually
> taken over by a bunch of nincompoops which dissuades any possible serious
> contributor from participating.
>
> Colin Fairbrother

And..

> The rubbish posters in this group (RGL) are deluding themselves when they
> think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
>
> Colin Fairbrother

And of course, folks are well aware of the 'unscrupulous tactics' used in
self-dominated, chargeable *moderated* newsgroups, such as his lonely 'Lotto
Poster' forum! Subscribers to that forum (if there is any) are advised that
once they *pay* their $25 (au) annual fee, they are promised the following..

> As a Financial Member you gain access to the Inner Circle. If you have
> a Structured Set of numbers that you would like checked out I will
> endeavour to do that for you. It is up to you whether you want to share
> that Structured Set with other Financial Members.
>
> Colin Fairbrother

Huh? Gain access to his *Inner Circle*!! Now that's definitely worth a..

Bw..aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!!

The remaining tedium, ad-nausea guff is snipped to give RGL subscribers a
much deserved break from FFF (Fuhrer Fairbrother Fatigue).

The Fuhrer continues to condemn unmoderated newsgroups such as RGL, yet he
continues to subscribe here, posting his long-winded, pointless crap!

Which begs the question. Why does the Fuhrer continue subscribing here?
The answer is simply because his chargeable 'Lotto Poster' is dead and
buried! He well knows that RGL is the only place on Usenet he can continue
to pile up the poo on his mountainous, verbal dung heap!

Reminder..

> The rubbish posters in this group (RGL) are deluding themselves when they
> think that recent traffic is looking at their drivellings.
>
> Colin Fairbrother
......................................................................

Again, this repeated message to the Fuhrer..

[lot...@telus.net]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:52:15 AM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Let's summarize what Bluskov is admitting -
>
>

No, Mr. Fairbrother, I do not admit any of this, not in the way you state it. The way you state what I admit is typical for your style of twisting anything you hear, read or imagine in a way good for whatever your purpose is at the moment; in this case, to smear my name. You are not helping anyone by twisting the truth, and even less so yourself in whatever you promote (which I do not mind; with no other conditions attached to it, it is as good as quick picks, which is your second choice anyway).

>
> 1 It doesn't matter what set of numbers you play whether it be Random Selections, a set with a guarantee for a lesser Pool or a set using the full Pool, with no duplicate paying subsets and coverage maximized, they will all give returns where one has no advantage over the other.

This would be true under the following conditions:
(1) The lottery is absolutely unbiased, which cannot be absolutely true, ever, because any draw is a physical process, even when the draw is performed by computer; plus then there is the question of how good the random generator is, etc. In Bulgaria (one place where systems are implemented in the automated processing of tickets), the lottery corporation regularly published the results of measuring the weight of the ping-pong balls used in the machine; I have saved a scan showing weights between 2.38 and 2.47 grams; the range might be narrower nowadays, but still...

(2) The lottery is not biased in any way by the way people play, in other words all the players choose numbers equivalent to quick picks (truly random, that is, but then check part (1), because quick picks are generated by using random generator). Which means they do not choose any selection consisting of birthday numbers (days, months), patterns along the template of the ticket, hot/cold numbers, odd numbers (by some psychological reasons, when people are asked to choose a random number between 1 and 49, they would more likely give an answer which is an odd number, "the odd looks "more random" than even" paradox, 17 was the number chosen the most) etc.

(3) The payoff table of the lottery is fixed, including the jackpot, with no rollovers or caps on it. The conditions of the lottery can sometime introduce a significant advantage for rich players or syndicates:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/16/a_game_of_chance_became_anything_but/

>
>
>
> 2 The Covers or Wheels he promotes in his booklets have no advantage over any other set of distinct numbers for the same number of lines.

This is only true if all of the conditions in parts (1)-(3) are met, which in reality, never happens.

The reason for using these Wheels or Covers is because they have a property that if they were used in for the most part non-existent Lotto games they would guarantee a prize; this guarantee does not apply to the Lotto game being actually played.

This is according to your understanding and your definition of guarantee. The wheels in my book perform according to the definition of guarantee as clearly stated and explained in my books.

This property has a niceness that should be admired for its intrinsic mathematical beauty. If you have 10 lucky numbers just bung them in wherever you like in your lines played - it will make no difference.

Yes, if you play your lucky numbers, it will make no difference, still many people like the idea; as I mentioned before, no one wants to see 6 of their 10 lucky numbers drawn and not getting even a 3-win. But if you narrow down the field a bit by using some of the loopholes provided by the conditions in parts (1)-(3), then it could make some difference (this is difficult to quantify; I do not claim there would be any significant difference, thus no false advertising of any kind). The way people play can somewhat bias the lottery; more precisely, it can bias the payoffs if there is pati-mutuel structure for some tiers. There are ways to track bias introduced by the way people play, like establishing some connections between the numbers drawn, the previous numbers drawn (not in some "predictionists ways", but with regards to how people employ the previous numbers which could produce observable effect on the payoff of the lottery); this happens only for lotteries with pari-mutuel structure on some tiers. For example, we see hot numbers are drawn; and we observe that the payoffs are lower than average. This could be a fluke, but it could also mean that many people tracked the hot numbers and payed them, thereby creating a bias in the payoff. If you observe and employ this information and play cold numbers, then when cold numbers are drawn, your payoff will be higher, because more of the combinations bought will be on the hot numbers. Here "hot" and "cold" numbers are a local/temporary property; we know that drawing cold numbers is equally likely as hot ones, if there is no physical bias. The appearance of hotter and colder numbers happens in any lottery, due to variance.

>
>
>
> 3 The people he licenses to use his name and professional position to sell his Lotto booklets are not restricted in whatever outrageous claims they make.

You got this absolutely wrong. The people who sell my book or material from it with permission (there are not many) have their advertising materials checked by me, so there will be no false advertising in such materials, just like there is not any false or outrageous statements in any place in any of my books. Those who steal my work and try to sell it, might do it by using any outrageous claims attached.

>
>
>
> So, the next time you buy tickets do it the simplest way by buying Quick Picks. Come to think of it I've never objected to playing Quick Picks.

Neither did I; it is a free world, people can play any way they like. If they want to use systems, and have a bit more fun; maybe learn some mathematics in the process as well, my books are an option; so is your strategy, just offer whatever you offer for whatever it is and without abusing my name for gaining publicity.
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Professor Iliya Bluskov, Ph D

Let's clarify one point before the Coup de Gras in my next post -
I know you've been stiffening your neck for quite a while in anticipation. Also, in case you actually do not return again (You said you were leaving at least four times.) thank you for the dialogue opportunity - it forced me to tidy up my notes and organise scores of programs which I knew I had but hadn't used for quite some time.

Before that allow me to finish the punchline I left out in an analogy I made in a previous post -
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/TchcG7WEpYIJ
which should read -
Previous to Bluskov posting in this thread I thought of him as being a bit flaky and quirky but from what I have read in this thread I now regard him as being decidedly stupid as well. I suppose a bit like a savant that can give you the square root of a large number quicker than you can key it into a calculator but then rush to a crowded balcony and without blinking an eye unselfconsciously piss into the wind.

Bluskov claims in his last post,

"The people who sell my book or material from it with permission (there are not many) have their advertising materials checked by me, so there will be no false advertising in such materials, just like there is not any false or outrageous statements in any place in any of my books. Those who steal my work and try to sell it, might do it by using any outrageous claims attached."

Is Lottery Winning Systems of posh Double Bay in Sydney licensed by you?
Their flyer featuring your face and titled "What's the secret to playing the lottery?" followed by "This mathematical genius can show you!" is shown at -

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

Previously their flyers featured Gail Howard's face.

How about this website -

http://www.bluskovfreereport.com/

from the same company, Lottery Winning Systems which is a subsiduary of -

Financial Freedom Awards Establishment
Attn: Customer Service
Ebbehout 1
1507 EA Zaandam
Netherlands
T: +31 75 653 0592

The website states -

"In this revealing FREE report, you'll learn how Dr. Bluskov's systems can work for you in the quest for BIG MONEY with a life-changing lottery payout."

"An expert in the field of ‘Combinatorics’, Dr. Bluskov has devoted his life to studying lotteries to determine how to achieve a specific win-guarantee with a minimum number of tickets. In fact, he’s the only author who has actually created world record-breaking systems. In this definitive guidebook, Dr. Iliya Bluskov shows you the smart way to organise your numbers to achieve the most when you win. You might even capture that huge life-changing cash prize! Just imagine having the financial freedom to live in luxury and enjoy the best of everything...from beautiful homes to expensive clothes and exotic holidays. Don’t miss your opportunity to learn the secrets to success."

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

So, what is the problem, Mr. Fairbrother? Did you see a claim on improving the odds with even 1% (not the fat 5% you promise at your site)? Did you see anything disturbing in this advertising? Any explicit promises? Or claims they are selling something that overperforms everything else? I did not. Yes, a bit of cheesy ad, but it does not put a gun to your head and force you to buy anything, does it? It does not say buy our product, because it is better than the product of Colin Fairbrother by 5%. It does not accuse you in promoting false claims either. If you do see anything wrong with any advertisement that sell something based on my systems, please contact whoever is trying to sell it to you, or send you a free report or whatever. Teach them how it is done properly, just like you tried to teach me what a good way of playing the lottery is; I do not mind. Accuse them in false advertising, or whatever your imagination creates; I can only see they will be up for a treat. See I am not an expert in sales and advertising; I told you many times, you are picking on the wrong person, for the wrong reason. I have written books, supposedly better than other books on wheeling, that is all.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:51:24 PM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Professor Iliya Bluskov, Ph D
>
>
>
> Let's clarify one point before the Coup de Gras in my next post -
>
> I know you've been stiffening your neck for quite a while in anticipation. Also, in case you actually do not return again (You said you were leaving at least four times.) thank you for the dialogue opportunity - it forced me to tidy up my notes and organise scores of programs which I knew I had but hadn't used for quite some time.
>
>
>
> Before that allow me to finish the punchline I left out in an analogy I made in a previous post -
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/TchcG7WEpYIJ
>
> which should read -
>
> Previous to Bluskov posting in this thread I thought of him as being a bit flaky and quirky but from what I have read in this thread I now regard him as being decidedly stupid as well. I suppose a bit like a savant that can give you the square root of a large number quicker than you can key it into a calculator but then rush to a crowded balcony and without blinking an eye unselfconsciously piss into the wind.
>
>
>
> Bluskov claims in his last post,
>
> "The people who sell my book or material from it with permission (there are not many) have their advertising materials checked by me, so there will be no false advertising in such materials, just like there is not any false or outrageous statements in any place in any of my books. Those who steal my work and try to sell it, might do it by using any outrageous claims attached."
>
>
>
> Is Lottery Winning Systems of posh Double Bay in Sydney licensed by you?

Does not sound familiar at all, but in any case, why do I have to answer to you? If you feel I should be held responsible for anyone who tries to take advantage of my material, and if you feel insulted by the advertising, then go talk to your lawyer and take the necessary actions. Are you bitter about hearing the truth about your system? I am sorry; I have nothing against you or your system; came here, because I saw your shouting all over the internet; you probably needed expert opinion; you got it; I spent the time and addressed your claims. As I said before, if you have problems with how my books/systems are sold, contact the sellers and ask for the explanations you need. If they show you a contract they have with my name on it on book rights or any other rights, we can talk again, or, let me see, maybe not. Too much love around here.

>
> Their flyer featuring your face and titled "What's the secret to playing the lottery?" followed by "This mathematical genius can show you!" is shown at -
>
> DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736
>
>
>
> Previously their flyers featured Gail Howard's face.
>
>
>
> How about this website -
>
>
>
> http://www.bluskovfreereport.com/
>
>
>
> from the same company, Lottery Winning Systems which is a subsiduary of -

Lottery Winning Systems is the title of a small book by Gail Howard.

>
>
>
> Financial Freedom Awards Establishment
>
> Attn: Customer Service
>
> Ebbehout 1
>
> 1507 EA Zaandam
>
> Netherlands
>
> T: +31 75 653 0592
>
>
>
> The website states -
>
>
>
> "In this revealing FREE report, you'll learn how Dr. Bluskov's systems can work for you in the quest for BIG MONEY with a life-changing lottery payout."
>
>
>
> "An expert in the field of ‘Combinatorics’, Dr. Bluskov has devoted his life to studying lotteries to determine how to achieve a specific win-guarantee with a minimum number of tickets. In fact, he’s the only author who has actually created world record-breaking systems. In this definitive guidebook, Dr. Iliya Bluskov shows you the smart way to organise your numbers to achieve the most when you win. You might even capture that huge life-changing cash prize! Just imagine having the financial freedom to live in luxury and enjoy the best of everything...from beautiful homes to expensive clothes and exotic holidays. Don’t miss your opportunity to learn the secrets to success."
>
>
>
> Colin Fairbrother

Which part you find disturbing? I see words like "quest", "achieve the most when you win" (which alludes to the capability of systems to provide multiple wins when there is a hit, kind of the opposite to what you are preaching), then "might", then "imagine" etc. Again, I am no expert on advertising. I read stuff like that and I do not really see anything I have not seen in advertising of everyday products; "this could change your life", right? Which means it will either change it or not. Nothing like unconditional 7000% increase of odds, or 5% on return, mind you. So, again, Mr. Fairbrother, what is your point, really? Find it difficult to stop? Let me refresh your memory. I came here because of your accusations of me spreading false claims; in the process, you gave the reason for your statement as being your perception that I promote something which is inferior to your own lottery strategy. I explained to you with the due diligence that

1) I do not promote; I have written a book for whoever wants to use it, mostly people who somehow came with a selection of more than 6 numbers, and do not want to miss if their numbers are drawn.
2) The wheels in my book, as a way of playing, are not inferior to your own strategy.

That was all. Get some life, or keep digging, whatever makes you tick.
Iliya Bluskov

[Charlie]

Sure do Nigel,"will work for beer" comes to mind.

He came to Australia in 2007, I drove him from Perth to Armidale with
stops at all available meaderies.

Charlie

[Colin Fairbrother]

Estimating Grouped Prizes Return in Lotto for specified Draws and Set of Numbers Played.
by Colin Fairbrother

I pose the rhetorical question, " ... whether other than through sheer luck the odds can be bettered." in the header at my site http://ColinFairbrother.com. To any mathematician worth his salt the answer is no. That being so, are their sets of numbers one can play in Lotto that get us pretty spot on with the odds? The answer is yes - I have shown the Steiner C(22,6,3,3)=77 achieves that as much as is possible with a hypothetical Pick 6, Pool 22 Lotto game. (The syntax in order is Pool 22, Pick 6, Guarantee or Match 3, Hits and Minimum Lines 77.) The logical next question is, are there sets that reduce your chances of getting the maximum return in Lotto in the reasonable short term? - the answer is yes and I will demonstrate that below.

Prize tables are commonly given by Lotto Operators for a Lotto Design as in Australia for the System 7 and System 8, which are respectively all the Combinations of six integers for a Pool of 7 or 8 integers. eg see

https://tatts.com/tattersalls/games/tattslotto/systems-prize-divisions

The important point is that if playing a System 8 or Full Wheel 8 the Prize Table is not given for a hypothetical 6/8 Lotto game but for the actual Lotto game, say, 6/45. To do otherwise would be considered to be misinformation and grossly deceptive. This is precisely what Professor and Doctor Iliya Bluskov does in his booklets.

System Prize Tables can be produced mathematically but for other sets only through analysis of the Lotto design by testing it, eg a 6/49 Lotto game, against all the 13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers for prizes or matches and these can then be grouped. You can do it yourself by getting the free CoverMaster program from John Rawson. For details see -

http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ConstructingBestLottoCoversOrWheels.aspx

In the Covermaster Detailed Report the probability for each group can be obtained by moving the decimal point to the left two places in the percentage column. You can arrive at the likely prize results for the simulated draws required by simply multiplying the probability by the draws required.

Bluskov maintains this method is flawed and does not take into account the occasional big winner which would render the interpretation invalid. He maintains that despite the Lotto Design being already tested against the 13,983,816 possible CombSixes in a 6/49 Lotto game for prizes it should be done again for each prize group. The intention is obvious - to obfusticate and over complicate a simple task with a simple intention. Bluskov laughs at the idea that lower prizes can be used to assess the merits of a Lotto playset. Of course a big win can occur but it can be set aside and reliance put on the more repetitive prize groups. All the Covers or Wheels tested at -

LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE

at http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

have been done in a consistent manner and not one has performed better in returns than Partial Covers with no repeat subsets, full Pool used and Coverage maximized. Some have given very poor returns.

In my popular free online article titled -

ANALYSIS OF 15 LOTTO NUMBER SETS - WORST TO BEST
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=583

the second worst is the System 8 or Full Wheel for Pool 8 when applied to a 6/49 Lotto game, which is all 28 combinations of 6 integers from 8 integers. Here it is -

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 8
1 2 3 4 6 7
1 2 3 4 6 8
1 2 3 4 7 8
1 2 3 5 6 7
1 2 3 5 6 8
1 2 3 5 7 8
1 2 3 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 7
1 2 4 5 6 8
1 2 4 5 7 8
1 2 4 6 7 8
1 2 5 6 7 8
1 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 4 5 6 8
1 3 4 5 7 8
1 3 4 6 7 8
1 3 5 6 7 8
1 4 5 6 7 8
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 8
2 3 4 5 7 8
2 3 4 6 7 8
2 3 5 6 7 8
2 4 5 6 7 8
3 4 5 6 7 8

This Full Wheel has a lot of repetition of the subsets. Instead of 560 distinct CombThrees there are only 56 repeated 10 times. Instead of 420 distinct CombFours there are only 70 repeated 6 times. Instead of 168 CombFives there are only 56 repeated 3 times. Many Covers or Wheels have excessive repetition of the subsets.

Intuitively one would think, correctly, that it would be harder to get any of these prizes because of the repetition while realizing when they did occur there would be multiple prizes.

This Wheel has a guarantee for a hypothetical Pick 6 Pool 8 Lotto game but no such game exists. The guarantee is that after the draw if the 6 numbers drawn are in the 8 chosen then you win or share first prize. Of course this guarantee is totally irrelevant and useless when using this Wheel in a 6/49 Lotto game as only 28 of the 13,983,816 combinations are available just like any other jumbled up set of 28 lines. These deceptive lower Pool guarantees are not much different to saying if one of your lines has 6 integers that are the same as the winning 6 integers you win or share first prize.

Analysing this 28 line set by testing against the 13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers in a 6/49 Lotto game and then multiplying the probability by 36 for a good approximation of 1000 plays or 36 draws we get 36 most likely occurrences -

6 5 4 3 Total Probability Most Likely
- - - - 13327132 0.9530397 34
- - - 10 596960 0.0426893 2
- - 6 16 57400 0.0041047 -
- 3 15 10 2296 0.0001642 -
1 12 15 0 28 0.0000020 -

In a trial over 36 draws we are expecting 2x10=20 match Threes.

The results below apply the 28 line Pool 8 Full Wheel over 36 draws using the UK Lotto results starting from draw 1 for 20 trials.
Draw Range 3 4 5 6
1 to 36 20 - - -
37 to 72 20 - - -
73 to 108 40 - - -
109 to 144 - - - -
145 to 180 20 - - -
181 to 216 10 - - -
217 to 252 50 - - -
253 to 288 30 - - -
289 to 324 10 - - -
325 to 360 - - - -
361 to 396 20 - - -
397 to 432 10 - - -
433 to 468 20 - - -
469 to 504 30 - - -
505 to 540 10 - - -
541 to 576 36 6 - -
577 to 612 20 - - -
613 to 648 - - - -
649 to 684 - - - -
685 to 720 10 - - -

There are 4 trials of 36 draws with no matches.
The trial average for match Threes is approx 18.
Total plays: 20160
Using standard UK costs and payouts of £2, £25 and £100
Cost Total: 28x36x2x20=£40320
Prize Total: £9500
Yield or Percentage Return: 23.56%

To nullify any accusations of rigging I use the record coverage
6/49 Partial Cover for 28 lines at John Rawson's site -

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/honest.john/

exactly as provided by Adolf Muehl with no duplicate CombThrees.

Analysing this 28 line Partial Cover set by testing against the 13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers in a 6/49 Lotto game and then multiplying the probability by 36 for a good approximation of 1000 plays or 36 draws we get 36 most likely occurrences -

6 5 4 3 Total Probability Most Likely
- - - - 7571012 0.5414124 20
- - - 1 5225888 0.3737097 13
- - - 2 759408 0.0543062 2
- - - 3 39728 0.0028410 -
- - - 4 1268 0.0000907 -
- - 1 0-1 379260 0.0271214 1
- 1 - - 7224 0.0051660 -
1 - - - 28 0.0000020 -

In a trial over 36 draws we are expecting 13x1=13 + 2x2=4 ie 17 match Threes and 1 match 4.

The results below apply the Partial Cover over 36 draws using the UK Lotto results starting from draw 1 for 20 trials.
Draw Range 3 4 5 6
1 to 36 17 1 - -
37 to 72 18 1 - -
73 to 108 17 2 - -
109 to 144 19 3 - -
145 to 180 18 3 - -
181 to 216 17 1 - -
217 to 252 19 1 - -
253 to 288 21 1 - -
289 to 324 20 2 - -
325 to 360 14 2 - -
361 to 396 15 - - -
397 to 432 13 - - -
433 to 468 17 2 1 -
469 to 504 15 1 - -
505 to 540 19 3 - -
541 to 576 15 1 - -
577 to 612 21 - - -
613 to 648 18 1 - -
649 to 684 5 1 1 -
685 to 720 23 1 - -

All trials of 36 draws have matches.
The trials average for match Threes is approx 17 as estimated.
The trials average for match Fours is approx 1 as estimated
Total plays: 20160
Using standard UK costs and payouts of £2, £25 and £100
Cost Total: 28x36x2x20=£40320
Prize Total: £13225
Yield or Percentage Return: 32.80%
Difference between Wheel and Partial Cover results: 9.24%

Note: If the two match Fives were treated as match Fours the
difference would still be 4.78% in favour of the Partial Cover.

Bluskov would have us believe that the reason he and his cohorts promote lesser Pool Covers or Wheels with irrelevant guarantees is so that users will have the sheer joy of using their favoured numbers in inferior sets for the actual Lotto game they are playing.

The reality is people play Lotto for the miniscule chance of winning or sharing first prize. They should be happy to know the set they are playing will give them the best chance of winning as many as possible of the minor prizes and not be duped by someone touting their academic qualification and University position to flog inferior Lotto sets.

I never thought I'd read a Professor of Mathematics with a Doctorate casting doubt on the randomness of the draws because of ball imperfections. The truth is Bluskov is a fellow traveller and apologist for the fruit cake brigade in Lotto analysis as debunked by me in: -

Analysis of Lotto Draw History - the Final Word
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/AnalysisOfLottoDrawHistoryFinalWord.aspx

Will their Lotto System work in the simplest case?
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/WillTheirLottoSystemWorkInTheSimplestCase.aspx

Six articles under heading of Lotto Filters Simply Do Not Work
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/Default.aspx

As I have pointed out before the seed for deception can be traced back to Bluskov's thesis New Designs and Coverings where he trots out the line on Page 9 that a guarantee for a C(14,6,4,4)=80 in a hypothetical 6/14 Lotto game with only 3003 combinations of six integers somehow carries over beneficially to a 6/49 Lotto game with some 14 million. It doesn't - for the easiest to get prize 3if6 only 3,051,048 CombThrees are covered or 21.82% whereas the first 80 draws or Random Selections from the UK Lotto gives a 3if6 Coverage of 78%.

Here is the crunch- Bluskov disparages Random Selections as having no guarantee despite there being three and a half times more 3if 6 Coverage and that doesn't vary more than 1% for any other contiguous set of 80.

On the same page Bluskov insults the intelligence of the reader by stating with my capitals, "However, if any 4 of the numbers drawn are among the 14 numbers chosen by the syndicate, then the 80 tickets of a (14,6,4) covering guarantee at least one 4-win while 80 random tickets (ON THE SAME 14 NUMBERS) guarantee nothing!"

This is a thesis. HE IS REFERRING TO A 6/49 LOTTO GAME; SURELY 80 RANDOM TICKETS FROM A POOL OF 49 IS MORE RELEVANT! WHERE WOULD YOUR AVERAGE PLAYER GET 80 RANDOM TICKETS FROM 14 NUMBERS AND MORE TO THE POINT WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER?

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:42:34 PM UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:

> This brings into question the whole purpose about using different designs and
> especially your designs mostly arrived at by others with regard to Lotto.
>

Mr. Fairbrother,
I already commented on this, and explained that some of the coverings in repositories or software found its way there from my book, rather than the other way around, but I will give you a bit of further insight; statements like the above show that you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are ready to throw any statement that comes to mind, without checking any facts, if you feel it might discredit the opponent (smear, smear...) I wonder when exactly you became an expert on how the knowledge on designs is created and disseminated, and on my contributions? Bold and outrageously false statements on matters well outside your area of expertise (whatever that might be) certainly cast a shadow of a doubt on all of your other statements, do not you think? I have already commented on some of those. I mean, I do not have to explain my credentials and my contributions to a person who has no credentials and contributions to the subject, other than "testing systems"; well, there are millions who can do that; writing the best books on lotto systems is done by one at a time (I am not saying I am the only one who is able to do so, I just happen to be one who did it). Even less so you are authorized to judge contributions in an area where your knowledge is at best very basic; but once you mentioned it, why not? Here is how it is done, for your information and satisfaction: Go to

http://www.ccrwest.org/cover/top.html

What you see there is a table of the top contributors. I do not really "contribute" there, although my name is mentioned on two different lines, first alone and then with Heikki Hammalainen with two contributions each, just a rare occurrence, following a personal request by Gordon. Many other coverings from my paper with Heikki and from another paper (with Bertolo and Hammalainen) were submitted by people who have extracted the results from the articles. The "contributions" are actually "submissions"; the person who submitted the covering is credited as "contributor", even though that person might not be the original creator; you can check this statement with Gordon himself. In many cases, the contributor has not gone through contacting the actual creator(s)/author(s), in other cases the creator is no longer alive (for some coverings extracted from old research papers). Many of the minimal coverings found at Gordon's site are constructed with my participation and help, although technically submitted by other people. Here are several ways this is done:

1) For both old and new results: I have communicated with contributors, provided them with articles, ideas, explanations, and in some cases, software, so they were able to construct minimal coverings from the literature and submit there. I have communicated, at various points of time, with half of the people on that long list.

2) For newer results: I have written papers with other contributors there such as Jan de Heer (2 articles on pick-5 and pick 6, respectively; Jan submits to LJCR) and also with Ricardo Bertolo, and also many other papers written by me as a single author or with other people who are not interested in lotteries, so their names do not show on that list either, and we do not submit there; results from these papers were submitted by other people.

3) Two of the top three contributors are Jan de Heer and Colin Barker. I have already mentioned Jan de Heer; hundreds of his contribution come either directly from the papers we have written, or from communications regarding older results.

One of the wheels I published in RGL is

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/MkDFiYTdRLg/cJPTHkeDLqgJ

based on a paper published in the Canadian Mathematical Bulletin in 2000. The paper is here:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34.7660&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Let us follow just one example on how things might be working at the repositories.
Go to page 11 of the said paper; there is a table there, with minimal coverings (those in that table are easy to understand; there are many other minimal coverings described there); pick any parameters mentioned in the table, say (v,k,t)=42,6,2 or 49,6,2, etc. (well, 40<v<100; Gordon's site goes up to 100 only)

Then go to the site,

http://www.ccrwest.org/cover.html

and enter the parameters to retrieve the covering; you will see something like: submitted 2008 by Colin Barker. Do that with any other set of parameters from that paper and you will see a similar outcome. This should tell you how things work there; no mentioning of my name, or any of the other two coauthors' names with whom I wrote the article. Colin is listed as contributor. So technically, a contributor at Gordon's site means a person who submitted a covering, not the person/people who first discovered it, although there are many exceptions (mostly on non-minimal coverings), where the contributor and the creator are the same person. Do I mind any of this? I do not. The progress of science is vastly based on cooperation, on dissemination of results. Colin (Barker) read the article, wrote some software, produced the coverings, asked if it is OK to submit; got a permission and submitted. Could I have done it myself? I will let you guess.

Colin's acknowledgement:

http://colin.barker.pagesperso-orange.fr/lpa/bluskov.htm

Many coverings from my books are still not in any repositories (except, possibly, in those of copyright violators). Here is a table of double coverings which has information about some of the double coverings in my books.

www3.telus.net/lotbook/doubleP13.pdf

The page is from my article

On the Covering Numbers C_2(v,k,t), Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 63(2007), 17-32.
(I cannot publish the entire article due to copyright considerations.)

The total number of double and multiple guarantee systems in my books is 68, none of these could be found anywhere else; again with the mentioned disclaimer; if these appear anywhere, it will be a material extracted from my books, just like many of the conventional system records. But you can try to find some of the conventional (single guarantee) systems records from my book in repositories, and you might still fail; I am still a step ahead here and there.
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

The first post in this thread I know you have read and it gives two links to sites where Covers or Wheels may be downloaded for free, one of which you repeated in your latest post, pretending in your usual deceitful style, that I'm blissfully unaware of it. See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/wmaufbOVZuUJ

I repeat them here -

Where the Prize Guarantee is the same as the Match see: -
http://www.ccrwest.org/cover.html

Where the Prize Guarantee is different to the Match see: -
http://www.weefs-lottosysteme.de/systeme,en.htm

I have a page where I give the lower bounds of Pick 6 and Pick 5 Covers or Wheels up to Pool 30 which may be viewed here -
Best Lower Bounds For Covers Or Wheels
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/BestLowerBoundsForCoversOrWheels.aspx

For Pick 6 there are 134 mentioned and for Pick 5 161 where the lower bound is greater than 1. From various articles I have that go back to the early 80's or before, most of them cannot be attributed to you, which makes my statement correct.

A list of Covers for Pick 5 and Pick 6, where you claim to be first to arrive at the current minimum would be appreciated.

Regarding multiple guarantee Covers FOR THE APPLICABLE POOL I include one C(12.6,3,3,2)=22 in my comparison table. The Percentage Return or Yield in a 6/49 Lotto game for 45 draws, using the old UK costs and payouts is 17.6% for the partial pool Cover compared to 23.6% for my Partial Cover. See -

LOTTO WHEELS OR COVERS CON-ARTIST CLAIMS TOTALLY DEBUNKED IN TABLE

http://www.colinfairbrother.com/UsingLesserPoolCoversInLotto.aspx

What I found with multiple guarantee Covers is that some may give a better return than playing twice or whatever the single Cover but this is relevant only TO THE APPLICABLE POOL and there is no advantage for real Lotto games.

The famous Steiner C(22,6,3,3,1)=77 I've written about quite a bit with a Lotto enthusiast audience in mind, in contrast to you where I haven't seen it mentioned and don't know whether it is in your list. In a hypothetical 6/22 Lotto when looked at from a 3if6 viewpoint it would guarantee 20 match-3 wins.
It could be played in the West Virginia 6/25 Lotto game with redundacy with a guaranteed match-3 win. These are genuine guarantees applicable before the draw not silly and devious "guarantees" like Dr Iliya Bluskov uses, where you need to know the draw before you know whether, maybe, you have won something.

Regarding the Covers it would be very easy for me to include all of them in a zip file where they could be downloaded for free. The problem I have with that is that indirectly I would be promoting their use, rather than Partial Covers that give a better return.

For a 6/49 Lotto game I have no problem with John Rawson's Partial Covers list up to 74 lines; after that there are repeat CombThrees. See -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/honest.john/

I claim to have the lowest progressive Covers with unique CombThrees in C(49,6,3,6)=365 and C(45,6,3,6,1)=275. By progressive I mean that for any given number of lines the prize table has a normal distribution and it is close to the optimized set that has duplicate paying subsets eg for 163 lines 3if6 in a 6/49 Lotto game 99.32971%. It has been discussed in this newsgroup.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

>
> I have a page where I give the lower bounds of Pick 6 and Pick 5 Covers or Wheels up to Pool 30 which may be viewed here -
>
> Best Lower Bounds For Covers Or Wheels
>
> http://www.colinfairbrother.com/BestLowerBoundsForCoversOrWheels.aspx
>

You do? Why cannot I get rid of the feeling you do not know what you are talking about? Your bounds seem to be really low in some cases. Are you the creator? You must have been really distracted when copying info from the repositories... I would be extremely pleased to see and check the following records listed at your site:

pick-5:
12 numbers, 3 if 3 guarantee, 27 combinations
13 numbers, 3 if 3 guarantee, 32 combinations
14 numbers, 3 if 3 guarantee, 37 combinations
15 numbers, 3 if 3 guarantee, 54 combinations
16 numbers, 3 if 3 guarantee, 61 combinations
29 numbers, 2 if 2 guarantee, 42 combinations

But as the history often repeats, Mr. Fairbrother will most likely fail to address the matter at hand and will redirect the reader to some links within the ultimate encyclopedia on lottery knowledge, colinfairbrother.com
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Woops!

Now corrected to correspond to repository figures.

Looking forward to that list.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

"Discussed" as in "posted by Mr. Fairbrother and not understood by anyone else"?
What is the meaning of "any given number of lines"? Chosen how? Randomly?
What is the meaning of "the prize table has a normal distribution"?
What is the meaning of "close to the optimized set"
What is "optimized set"? How do you define "close to"?
Perhaps, writing so that people understand what you are writing about is not that easy after all? In spite of writing in your native tongue?

Here is a multiple choice question for you:
How many combinations can be formed out of 49 numbers with "unique CombThrees" (I hope I correctly guessed the meaning of it, as "no two combinations have more than two numbers in common")
(a) 365
(b) 374
(c) 427
(d) 532
(e) 631
(f) a bit more

I can certainly write a similar question for 45 numbers.

[lot...@telus.net]

Hmm, how was that for deceitful claims? Anyone willing to check tons of simulations, tables and statements at the encyclopedia of lotto knowledge site? I volunteer not...

[Colin Fairbrother]

Me thinks you are getting rather petty Dr Iliya Bluskov. I am used to dealing with fools in this newsgroup and for someone that has a PhD in mathematics you need to conduct yourself a bit more like a mature adult, rather than some immature teenager.

One of your biggest problems is your intellectual arrogence which just can't accept that you've been caught out, doing things that are unbecoming of a Professor in Mathematics.

You may have tenure with your Professorship at the University of Northern British Columbia and as previously stated by you, you may be looking at retirement soon, but based on your responses in this newsgroup, I think any University would seriously consider cutting their losses.

Since 2004 I have been publishing trials for various Wheels or Covers either by running against a good RNG or a Lotto draw history. The point is all these trials are scientific and what that means is, if you have the wherewithal, you can check and replicate my results.

Quite frankly Professor you're losing your marbles and probably heading for a nervous breakdown, even though I've been sparring with you one handed, hopping on one leg and with a blindfold over one eye. You need to take a break and consider your position.

There's a lot of options open to me to take it to another level - you and your publicists use your Doctorate in Mathematics and your Professorship at a Canadian University to promote utter garbage by duping the naive and gullible into thinking there is some credibility to your lesser Pool Cover nonsense. That you should do that could be of interest to the media and if they become involved they will contact other mathematicians, who will corroborate my position.

There is no doubt in my mind that you have been relying on a reluctance by members of a profession to criticize one another. Do you really think that other academics are going to let you hold their professional status up to ridicule forever?

Some Lotto predictionists with already all the Wheels they need, would buy your books just to put them on a shelf and show to any visitor that questions their Lotto lunacy.

My advice would be to get back to higher mathematics and give the toss to all this mumbo jumbo with applying lesser Pool covers to real Lotto games. That's for the likes of Gail Howard and her followers who think they can narrow down the Pool applicable to the next draw. In other words predictionist nonsense.

Regarding your little questionaire - I am not your student. In fact there is nothing new you've come up with apart from adopting a hopeless negativity to standard scientific testing methods.

From https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/8wW1uHpbGFAJ on 12th March, 2014.

"I claim to have the lowest progressive Covers with unique CombThrees in C(49,6,3,6)=365 and C(45,6,3,6,1)=275. By progressive I mean that for any given number of lines the prize table has a normal distribution and it is close to the optimized set that has duplicate paying subsets eg for 163 lines 3if6 in a 6/49 Lotto game 99.32971%. It has been discussed in this newsgroup."

If you haven't got CoverMaster by John Rawson, I suggest you get it. For details see -
Manually Constructing a Best Lotto Wheel or Cover
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ConstructingBestLottoCoversOrWheels.aspx

You can confirm 496 as the answer required but not in your options, in about 1 minute. Next best play for 3if3 only covers 19 instead of 20.

Your other question is basically trite and a bit lazy on your part. If you are using Google for this newsgroup it has excellent search facilities and http://www.LottoPoster.com also has excellent search facilities - change from last 6 months to all in Find Posts.

This article explains most of what you ask -
Comparison of Lotto Yields for Various Methods and Combinations Played in Pick 6, Pool 49 Lotto
http://www.colinfairbrother.com/LottoAnalysisByYield.aspx

also

Scholars advocating Abnormal Distribution Covers
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=599

I'm pretty sure I was the first to point out that the C(49,6,3,6)=163 does not have a Gaussian, Bell Curve or Normal Distribution in the Prize Table.

John Rawson's page -
RECORD 3 MATCH 6/49 NUMBER LOTTERY WHEELS
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/honest.john/
has optimized sets as in 6/49 Partial Covers.
Shave a combination off and you can get your name in the list.

I update the following two articles from time to time -

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

Colin Fairbrother

[Parpaluck]

Look at all that DELIRIOUS SPEECH of Psycholin Zamzalasheep! It is not "arrogance" as the "native English speaker" says. Those skumbullows of disproportionate insanity have no arrogance, have no sense of humor, have no coherence -- they only have MADNESS to show for.

Hallucinating all over the place!

"Since 2004 I have been publishing trials for various Wheels or Covers either by running against a good RNG or a Lotto draw history. The point is all these trials are scientific and what that means is, if you have the wherewithal, you can check and replicate my results."

Scientific, MADSO? Like that 300-line lotto wheel that you scream-claimed that it was the best in its category?! But nobody has ever seen ONE line of that lotto wheel -- because it was only your HALLUCINATION!

Actually, "Since 2004" you have become the most disgusting specimen of the Animal Kingdom! You, Psycholin Zamzalasheep, started as Colin Fairbrothel with spoofing email addresses, mouth-foaming attacks in public forums, stealing materials from other authors, "publishing" the most insane aberrations (like "winning the pick-3 lottery is easier than betting on tails in coin tossing"). You, Psycholin Zamzalasheep, are so compulsive-obsessive that you even bothered my Alma Mater to "prove your madness" that I had no university degree:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.gambling.lottery/1qT7Z-b6Ed0

One might ask this legitimate question: How come Psycholin Zamzalasheep is not behind bars?

He is not afraid because he can always PLEAD NOT GUILTY FOR THE REASON OF INSANITY.

[lot...@telus.net]

Thank you for the lesson on what I should and should not be doing, and on your deep insights on what academics should or should not be doing in general. Any one else noticed someone who tries to play God around here? You are living in an imaginary world Mr. Fairbrother, and no one can remove you from there. I will leave you to believe in what you believe and toot your horn. There is no way you could understand how to compute return; either that, or you already realized that admitting the right way would necessarily imply removing all the baloney claims at your site, and that is way beyond your threshold of tolerance, admitting of being wrong in something is well beyond your kind anyway. You would not believe it even if the entire world tells you so; after all, you have been doing your simulations since 2004, and that, in your mind, makes you, undoubtedly right. Who is the world anyway; definitely something below your realm of existence, I would guess...

See, I know how to behave with mature adults; I have been working with mature adults all my life, but here I am dealing with a person who has not demonstrated maturity and apparently exhibits some other character flaws, so I hope I will be excused.

Good luck with finding any mathematician who will back up your way of computing return based on conveniently ignoring whatever you need to ignore and will denounce mine (or should I say the right way, I have not discovered it; it is in any textbook, and guess what, the academics teach out of these textbooks...). You can try the Wizard of odds to begin with, and then move to the academics, if you could find one who would not be lost in the second paragraph of any of your writings. You have even devised a ready excuse for why they would not do it, ironclad excuse in your mind, but very light in reality. Academics do criticise each other, not that often in mathematics, because it is a precise science, but still... I have been an editor and referee for scientific papers and, amazingly enough, sometimes we get submissions written pretty much at your level, which we sadly have to reject... Finding one of those authors might help your cause:-)

Why do not you try to comment on any of the examples I gave you for a change, rather than using any occasion to point to the useless pages at fairbrother.com? Say, buying a ticket in five consecutive draws and using the "proportionality law" to compute the expected return? And could you please learn to spell "arrogance" (do not you database gurus use a spell checker?). You could also scan and present to the public some of your credentials that give you the authority and credibility to criticize the writing of academics. I am sure the public here and elsewhere would be delighted to peruse such documents, and will be more open to your theories.

>
> There is no doubt in my mind that you have been relying on a reluctance by members of a profession to criticize one another. Do you really think that other academics are going to let you hold their professional status up to ridicule forever?
>
>

No I do not rely on anything, I have been stabbed in the back many times; I just know that I am right, and you are delusional, obsessed by promoting your ignorance to those rare individuals whose own ignorance exceeds yours, and somehow showing unhealthy obsession with an authority figure in your area of interest, some professor Bluskov, that is. Your idea on what I am relying is another delusion, as discussed above; academics do criticize each other. Nobody would care to protect colleagues, and even less so from a different university in a different country, if they are wrong. They will just smash me like a fly on the wall, if I am. But I believe your excuse is devised to protect YOU from scrutiny. The problems that you conveniently ignore are
1) You cannot write well, you cannot express yourself well enough to present a coherent argument, an argument that will be unambiguously understood. That is the main reason why your findings cannot be easily published by anyone other than you.
2) You are plainly wrong, aggressively promoting your "improving the odds" strategy; this one line description of "your" strategy would be sufficient for any academic to smash you like the said fly, without the need of any further reading.

I am just wondering what is behind this spite: Have you been hurt by teachers that did not give you the grades you thought you deserve? Or by narcissistic parents who failed to notice the genius in you? Or perhaps you bought too many of Gail Howard products and wanted to wage vendetta on whoever is, according to your mind, in that same business? You would be surprised to know who are the readers of my book; at least those who write to me; I would say many quite intelligent people, doctors, lawyers, people with college and university degrees; quite often with better knowledge than what you are trying to demonstrate here, people who understand the odds of the lotteries; who, just like me, actually play the lottery for fun, and like to play with the numbers the way I like, that is all. I am not selling a "get rich scheme" and I am not promising ROI higher than the actual return determined by the conditions of the lottery. There are thousands books on gambling strategies; these are entertainment books as far as I am concerned; when I go to Vegas, I grab a couple and make the experience more interesting, that is all. Pretty much everyone knows that no strategy can overcome the casino edge in a long run, still people read about strategies and employ them. Change in attitude is strongly advised to make your life easier and your retirement more productive and worry free; take a break; winning battles is worth the efforts only if you are not losing the war.

>
> If you haven't got CoverMaster by John Rawson, I suggest you get it. For details see -
>
> Manually Constructing a Best Lotto Wheel or Cover
>
> http://www.colinfairbrother.com/ConstructingBestLottoCoversOrWheels.aspx
>
>
>
> You can confirm 496 as the answer required but not in your options, in about 1 minute. Next best play for 3if3 only covers 19 instead of 20.

Wrong, the answer is 683 (current record); well beyond the capabilities of your favorite CoverMaster. You read it right: 683 combinations, each covering 20 unique 3s, to use your terminology; the corresponding record for 45 numbers is 489.

You are definitely looking for attention, positive or negative, any reaction, at any cost; the action that gets you that reaction does not really matter. This is another distinctive feature of a well-known condition, but on that - later. So just some more oil in your engine for now.
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Your 683 lines for a 6/49 Game with unique CombThrees is interesting as is the
489 for a 6/45. I have no reason to disbelieve you on this point and will take
those figures as being targets. The subject has been raised in this newsgroup
before and John Rawson gave that answer for someone asking how many. I
already knew the figure from using his program to confirm my own program's
findings or for quickly doing something in his, as it is extremely fast.

I'm mainly deal with 3if6 so it is not a topic I'm overly concerned about. I
would be very interested in seeing at least 497 combinations for 6/49 to
confirm we are on the right page.

What I write stands on its own merits and doesn't need anything more than that,
apart from an open mind.

In February of this year I came across a website maintained by an interesting
person, Bill Butler, who calls himself Durango Bill and has pages on both the
USA Powerball and MegaMillions odds. He has had "Over 4.0 million page hits
since start-up March 13, 2001.". That is very impressive.

You may care to note from both his Mega Millions Odds and PowerBall Odds
articles -

From the paragraph titled, "Probability of multiple winning tickets (multiple
winners) given "N" tickets in play" the following sentence -

"Note: All calculations assume that the numbers on any given ticket are picked
randomly." and further on "It is assumed that the number selections on each
ticket are picked randomly."

Your lesser Pool Covers would just not qualify - too distorted you see.

From the section titled, "Percentile Expected Returns on Ticket Purchases"
we have -
"The average return per $1.00 ticket includes the extremely low probability
that you might win a large prize - for example $5,000 or more. As a practical
matter, it is unlikely that you will ever buy enough tickets (fork out enough
money) to ever have much of a chance for any of the large prizes. Thus it is
probable that all you will ever get back from your ticket purchases are
piddling small amounts."

Does this mean there is an alternative to the grandly bestowed by you
"Fairbrother Law of Proportionality"?

Should it be called Durango Bill's Law of Piddling Returns?

Does he not think for most players, just like I do, you don't need to factor in
the first prize prizemoney as 99.999% of players won't see a dime of it?

See an explanation in detail here -

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

and don't forget to look here as well.

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

Colin Fairbrother

[Colin Fairbrother]

Oops, forgot to give the links -

Bill Butler, Durango Bill home page
http://www.durangobill.com/

MegaMillions Odds
http://www.durangobill.com/MegaMillionsOdds.html

Powerball Odds
http://www.durangobill.com/PowerballOdds.html

Quite by accident I raised the famous creationism trial early in this thread and the fact that misguided Professors had supported it -
See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/HQmjW7UaHG8J

I wrote, "I understand in the renown Creationism trial there were Professors defending the 7 days in which the Earth was supposed to have been created despite all fossil evidence etc to the contrary."

Have a read of Bills article titled -

The Deceitfulness of Creationism Especially in regard to Geology and the Grand Canyon.
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html

Hmmm, Deceitfulness, that word rings a bell.

I admire Bill - he's a fighter for truth. I believe that is what I am as well. There's no money in it - but that is not the motivation.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:19:27 PM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:

>
>
> What I write stands on its own merits and doesn't need anything more than that,
>
> apart from an open mind.

What you write uses my name as well, and I do not like the association. I do not care what you promote at your site, just do not use my name (what you write stands on its own merits and does not need anything more than that, right?)

>
>
>
> In February of this year I came across a website maintained by an interesting
>
> person, Bill Butler, who calls himself Durango Bill and has pages on both the
>
> USA Powerball and MegaMillions odds. He has had "Over 4.0 million page hits
>
> since start-up March 13, 2001.". That is very impressive.
>
>
>
> You may care to note from both his Mega Millions Odds and PowerBall Odds
>
> articles -
>
>
>
> From the paragraph titled, "Probability of multiple winning tickets (multiple
>
> winners) given "N" tickets in play" the following sentence -
>
>
>
> "Note: All calculations assume that the numbers on any given ticket are picked
>
> randomly." and further on "It is assumed that the number selections on each
>
> ticket are picked randomly."
>
>
>
> Your lesser Pool Covers would just not qualify - too distorted you see.
>

I do not see. Do you? Elucidate please. Qualify for what? This paragraph concerns the Probability of multiple Jackpot winning tickets given "N" tickets in play (where N is hundreds of millions of random tickets). What does this have to do with how some of these random tickets are combined?

You are trying to find a calf under the bull here...

>
>
> From the section titled, "Percentile Expected Returns on Ticket Purchases"
>
> we have -
>
> "The average return per $1.00 ticket includes the extremely low probability
>
> that you might win a large prize - for example $5,000 or more. As a practical
>
> matter, it is unlikely that you will ever buy enough tickets (fork out enough
>
> money) to ever have much of a chance for any of the large prizes. Thus it is
>
> probable that all you will ever get back from your ticket purchases are
>
> piddling small amounts."

I do not see any problem with this statement. Large wins do not happen very often. Does Bill Butler exclude them from his computation of a return of a ticket? I guess, you just see what you want to see, and no one else sees.

>
>
>
> Does this mean there is an alternative to the grandly bestowed by you
>
> "Fairbrother Law of Proportionality"?

No it does not. Does Bill Butler restrict to 50 draws in computing the return of a ticket? Why do not you apply your "law of proportionality on the simple one ticket/5 draws example instead and entertain us with your findings?

>
>
>
> Should it be called Durango Bill's Law of Piddling Returns?
>
>
>
> Does he not think for most players, just like I do, you don't need to factor in
>
> the first prize prizemoney as 99.999% of players won't see a dime of it?

Durango Bill does the computation of return on a ticket correctly; you do not. Durango Bill does not sell a strategy based on his correct computation of the return. You sell a strategy based on your incorrect computation of the return and using my name in the process. Durango Bill is a fighter for the truth; one can say that; he publishes sophisticated matter for the curious (although the lotteries do not really hide this information either); Colin Fairbrother is a fighter for attention; positive, negative, does not really matter.

[Parpaluck]

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:19:27 PM UTC-4, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Your 683 lines for a 6/49 Game with unique CombThrees is interesting

Again, the hallucinatory DELIRIOUS SPEECH of Psycholin Zamzalasheep!

This topic of least amount of lines in '3 of 6' lotto wheels for all 49 numbers in a lotto-6 game was analyzed exhaustively in this newsgroup:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.gambling.lottery/DAawKHhLKP4/K5LfwT6rqqIJ

"My lotto wheeling software is named WheelCheck6.EXE. It is part of a large integrated lotto software package known as Bright6.exe. All my software is free to use but the download requires paid membership (a nominal fee):
http://saliu.com/membership.html

WheelCheck6.EXE also checks for missing lines in a lotto wheel. The program generates larger lotto wheels in order to strike mathematical balance (equal treatment of all numbers). The '3 of 6 from 49' lotto design generated by the WheelCheck6 program consists of 514 lines. The numbers are fairly equitably distributed, but there is a bias towards the first 3 numbers. The bias is caused by the fact that the lexicographical lotto generation starts with #1. If we did the generation in descending number (starting at #49), then the bias would favor #s 49, 48 and 47.

I was able to reduce this lotto system down to 412 combinations. The minimal guarantee was preserved, while the balance was improved. "

Many members of RGL reduced the '6/49, 3 of 6' lotto wheel to 312, 311 lines and down to 307 lines (by Manfred). Colin "Call-Me-Hallucinater" Fairbrother mouth-foamingly screamed that he succeeded in reducing the wheel to 306 lines! But nobody has ever seen his "lotto wheel"... it was only his hallucination!

So, "Your 683 lines for a 6/49 Game with unique CombThrees is interesting..." is FAR FROM OPTIMAL as far as number of lines is concerned. That 683-line lotto wheel must be consisting of too many 3-number duplicates.

*** My website has been suspended temporarily. But it'll be back online. Not to mention that lawsuits will settle this madness rampant on the Internet. Stupidiots who hate you because of your ideas can cause trouble... which is not warranted. Therefore the LAW must stop such illegal acts of disruption. Stay tuned... Facebook is a good place to get the latest news in this matter:
http://www.facebook.com/Parpaluck

Ion Saliu,
Founder of Lotto Mathematics

"Knowledge is like crystal-clear water that keeps you cool in summer, and red wine to keep you warm in winter."

[Colin Fairbrother]

I recently came across the following quote from Professor Stephen Clarke of Swinburne University, http://www.swinburne.edu.au/chancellery/mediacentre/media-centre/view-expert/stephen-clarke -

"Because system entries repeat the same numbers on many entries, when a particular set of numbers from a system entry win a certain division, they will also win several prizes from the lower division or possibly of the same division. This means that when a system entry wins something, it is likely to be a bigger total amount because of the multiple wins. Now there is no such thing as a free lunch, so the higher total prize is counteracted by a lower chance of winning something. In short, by choosing a system entry rather than an equivalent number of separate independent entries with different numbers, a player will have a win less often. But when they do win, they win more."

Seems consistent with what I am saying and is backed up by my Coup de Gras post
January 23, 2014 see -
Estimating Grouped Prizes Return in Lotto for specified Draws and Set of Numbers Played by Colin Fairbrother
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/d4t2Jrwwhf8J

_______________________________________________________________________________
The results for a 28 line System 8 are compared with a 28 line Partial Cover to give an overall difference of 9%
_______________________________________________________________________________

Note that my calculation for likely wins in both cases correlates correctly with the actual results.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The overall number of plays testing each set is 36 (draws) x 28 (plays per draw) x 20 (trials) = 20160
_______________________________________________________________________________

With the System 8 more plays are needed on average for a win 55.69 whereas the Partial Cover needs less plays at 54.48. The System 8 gives only 6 match-4 and nil match-5 wins, whereas the Partial Cover gives 27 match-4 and 2 match-5 wins. The average match-3's per trial is 17.8 for the System 8 whereas the Partial Cover is slightly lower at 17.05.

This is contrary to what Bluskov is saying -

From his book, "Players like the fact that playing with systems provides a steadier stream of wins compared to playing with a random collection of tickets"

Some fact!
nb A favourite ruse of Bluskov which goes back to his thesis of 1997, "New Designs and Coverings" where in the context of playing a 6/49 game he will compare a Cover with Random Selections from say a Pool of 14 rather than 49, the obvious applicable Pool. Let deviousness be his name.

From this thread, "The book I had written would give you a better chance of winning, but not necessarily winning big. For example, just picking favorites and random numbers you might win one every 400 times or less. With my method you might win one every 150 times. You're winning more often but you're still losing money."

Nope! Winning less often and overall winning less too!

In his usual style Bluskov talks unashamedly and premeditately cross purposes. I define Percentage Return or Yield as the Wins/Cost * 100. Knowing this definition he will deliberately ramble on about Yield or Expected Return over all possibilities when that is not the context or issue.

He talks about one line in say a 6/49 Lotto game where the Prize Table is exactly the same as the theoretical calculation. One line by itself is just as good as any other and just as we multiply the probability arrived at theoretically for a prize by the draws for likely wins so it can be done with the Prize Table where the probability has been calculated by testing the 1 line against all the 13,983,816 possibilities.

For 2 lines or more distortion can be introduced eg 5 of the integers can be repeated and still have distinct lines.

The Prize Table for 2 lines with distinct integers will show no prizes as the most likely 0.96.

The Prize Table for 2 lines with 5 integers repeated will also show no prizes as the most likely but at 0.97.

In other words the structure of the set effects the probabilities for the Prize Groups including the group No Prize.

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736


Colin Fairbrother

--------------= Posted using GrabIt =----------------
------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =---------
-= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-

[duncan smith]

On 15/03/14 09:07, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> I recently came across the following quote from Professor Stephen Clarke of Swinburne University, http://www.swinburne.edu.au/chancellery/mediacentre/media-centre/view-expert/stephen-clarke -
>
> "Because system entries repeat the same numbers on many entries, when a particular set of numbers from a system entry win a certain division, they will also win several prizes from the lower division or possibly of the same division. This means that when a system entry wins something, it is likely to be a bigger total amount because of the multiple wins. Now there is no such thing as a free lunch, so the higher total prize is counteracted by a lower chance of winning something. In short, by choosing a system entry rather than an equivalent number of separate independent entries with different numbers, a player will have a win less often. But when they do win, they win more."
>
> Seems consistent with what I am saying and is backed up by my Coup de Gras post

[snip]

The "no free lunch" is that the expected number of wins at a given tier
for a given (fair) lottery is proportional to the number of tickets bought.

Duncan

[lot...@telus.net]

Well, it depends on how optimality is defined; 683 lines each covering 20 new triples is pretty optimal in terms of packing as many triples as possible within 6-tuples without any repetition (so there are no duplicate 3s). This is not exactly the problem as discussed earlier in this group; one of the conditions is dropped, namely, the single 3 if 6 guarantee (which can be done in much less combinations); however, the 683 lines have multiple 3 if 6 guarantee; at least two, but most of the time it will be 20. My good friend and promoter here, Mr. Fairbrother, likes unique triples, so I thought I should mention it.

[lot...@telus.net]

On Saturday, March 15, 2014 2:07:03 AM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> I recently came across the following quote from Professor Stephen Clarke of Swinburne University, http://www.swinburne.edu.au/chancellery/mediacentre/media-centre/view-expert/stephen-clarke -
>

You were quite busy searching for something to hold onto, eh? Still looking for a calf under the bull? Drowning in the river and trying to hold onto a paper napkin floating on the surface? As it is usually the case, you see what you want to see, and no one else sees it. The return on a ticket is fixed by the conditions of the lottery. There is only one way to correctly compute it, and it is clearly explained at the sites you well know. Random combinations do not give any advantage in terms of return. You do not seem to be able to comprehend the simple fact that a lunacy statement can only be backed up by lunatics; you will have hard time searching for those among people in the academia; you will be more successful in getting support from the subscribers of your site; they might need to feel justified about paying for the reliable information there...

>
>
> "Because system entries repeat the same numbers on many entries, when a particular set of numbers from a system entry win a certain division, they will also win several prizes from the lower division or possibly of the same division. This means that when a system entry wins something, it is likely to be a bigger total amount because of the multiple wins. Now there is no such thing as a free lunch, so the higher total prize is counteracted by a lower chance of winning something. In short, by choosing a system entry rather than an equivalent number of separate independent entries with different numbers, a player will have a win less often. But when they do win, they win more."
>
>

What Steven Clarke says here is: There is a trade-off. I agree with him. What he says does not contradict anything I write in my books. His statement is just a general statement, no numbers; I have not checked his site and I have not seen if there are more statements backed up by numbers. Your link does not point to the paragraph you cite. In any case, there is no statement that random combinations perform better than a system; did I miss something? You are desperately trying to find supporters of your great +5% strategy, but I have not seen any evidence, and sadly, I will never see it; I am not going live long enough until another Colin Fairbrother is born somewhere, you are one of a kind (I know you feel good about it, no matter the negative connotation:-).

> Let deviousness be his name.
>
>
>
> From this thread, "The book I had written would give you a better chance of winning, but not necessarily winning big. For example, just picking favorites and random numbers you might win one every 400 times or less. With my method you might win one every 150 times. You're winning more often but you're still losing money."

Really, deviousness is MY name? The quote is indeed from this thread, but did I say it or even post it? Can the original poster give a link to the place where "I" really said that, I mean "I" and not someone who sells my stuff without proper endorsment. Another pathetic attempt failed Mr. Fairbrother, work harder... And do not miss the opportunity to post some more links to your great findings as well.

>
>
>
> Nope! Winning less often and overall winning less too!
>

Says who? Mr. Authority himself only!

>
>
> In his usual style Bluskov talks unashamedly and premeditately cross purposes. I define Percentage Return or Yield as the Wins/Cost * 100.
>

And no one else does... Excessive use of Me, My, I; another distinctive feature of a permanent attention seeker.

>
> Knowing this definition he will deliberately ramble on about Yield or > Expected Return over all possibilities when that is not the context or issue.
>

Yes, I will deliberately ramble; I came here, because someone deliberately used my name to promote his own shabby agenda, but I will soon be gone, do not worry, you will have the last word; not before I make one last gesture though, save you one last research, not on a lottery related question, just on a medical one; if you so much want to be known the way you are, then you should also be known with the medical condition that makes you the way you are, and probably excuses your actions to a point. It is not a serious condition; people have life with it, and it is not that rare; some are actually successful, in fact; how they feel is a different matter; what is people's perception of them is also a different matter, although you probably have a pretty good idea about the latter as well.

> He talks about one line in say a 6/49 Lotto game where the Prize Table is exactly the same as the theoretical calculation. One line by itself is just as good as any other and just as we multiply the probability arrived at theoretically for a prize by the draws for likely wins so it can be done with the Prize Table where the probability has been calculated by testing the 1 line against all the 13,983,816 possibilities.
>

Oh, now we are talking differently, are not we... Why suddenly drop the 50 draws argument?

>
> For 2 lines or more distortion can be introduced eg 5 of the integers can be repeated and still have distinct lines.
>

?!

>
>
> The Prize Table for 2 lines with distinct integers will show no prizes as the most likely 0.96.
>
>
>
> The Prize Table for 2 lines with 5 integers repeated will also show no prizes as the most likely but at 0.97.
>
>
>
> In other words the structure of the set effects the probabilities for the Prize Groups including the group No Prize.
>
>

Twisting the problem, eh? You have quite an arsenal of weapons; have been trained to survive your nasty condition all life, right? All kind of defensive mechanisms that will flood the real issue and draw the reader into incoherent mumbo-jumbo. I did not ask about playing 5 lines in one draw; I asked you to comment on playing one line in each of 5 consecutive draws and explain the outcome using your "proportionality law".

Good luck, mister,
in whatever makes you tick;
no envy, it is not easy to be you, I guess...

Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

Hi Duncan

I did raise proportionality with my good and charming friend, Iliya, in relation to the 6/49 Lotto game as in -

"For a well and truly randomized 13,983,816 combinations half of those will give coverage figures pretty well half as well and similarly for one third, one quarter etc. We can also apply proportionality by way of the draw plays - so one draw with 20 plays can be proportioned to 1,000 plays or 50 draws. I thought I was being original at the time I did it, so given it is so hard
for you (Iliya) to get your head around, I'll take credit for being the originator of this method.
See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/_TaiFJN0_vgJ

Iliya in his most jovial mood remarked upon my sense of humour as in, "Funny Man."

Apart from being an eminent statistician I seem to recall you had a website with various programs written in Python - am I right?

I believe Iliya has been consulting with the Psychology Professor at the University of Northern British Columbia and has been advised to introduce "the milk of human kindness". The interpretation is that what we are writing is on two levels similar to the extraordinary mathematician Lewis Carrol - yes he of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and what Alice found there fame. I'm sure he has been told it's all high falluting mind games.

Now, will it work with our mutually long term unworthy and intractable opponent, the black noise emitter, young Ion. I think the intention is to confuse him - but as he is already the epitome of confusion, I doubt it will work. Top marks to Iliya for trying.

Is this an interlude?

[Colin Fairbrother]

The concept is extremely simple and you are not fooling anyone, Dr Iliya Bluskov, by pretending you do not understand.

Consider a 6/49 Lotto game.

Playing a distorted set compared to a Partial Cover eg
System 8, Full Wheel Pool 8 or 8c6 consists of -
28 CombSixes
56 CombFives repeated 3 times
70 CombFours repeated 6 times
10 CombThrees repeated 2 times

Playing a 28 line Partial Cover consists of -
28 CombSixes
168 CombFives
420 CombFours
560 CombThrees

The single CombSix randomly drawn from a possible 13,983,816 combinations has -
1 CombSix
6 CombFives
15 CombFours
20 CombThrees

The Partial Cover has a better chance of a match and will occur more often because there are NO duplicates.

The System 8 has less chance of a match and will occur less often because of the duplicates. When a match does occur there will be multiple wins.

The plain and simple fact is there will on average be less wins for the System 8 and only after considerable draws will the wins even out.

Your ridiculous position is that for any draw their is an equal chance for the different sets to win a prize.

Your recalcitrant obstinacy to face the TRUTH just defies belief.

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

Colin Fairbrother

[duncan smith]

On 16/03/14 05:51, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Hi Duncan
>
> I did raise proportionality with my good and charming friend, Iliya, in relation to the 6/49 Lotto game as in -
>
> "For a well and truly randomized 13,983,816 combinations half of those will give coverage figures pretty well half as well and similarly for one third, one quarter etc. We can also apply proportionality by way of the draw plays - so one draw with 20 plays can be proportioned to 1,000 plays or 50 draws. I thought I was being original at the time I did it, so given it is so hard
> for you (Iliya) to get your head around, I'll take credit for being the originator of this method.
> See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/_TaiFJN0_vgJ
>
> Iliya in his most jovial mood remarked upon my sense of humour as in, "Funny Man."
>

For some reason I'm not seeing my original post, but clearly you can see it.

> Apart from being an eminent statistician I seem to recall you had a website with various programs written in Python - am I right?
>

I have no web site, but I have posted various bits of code, and I do use
Python a lot in my usual work.

> I believe Iliya has been consulting with the Psychology Professor at the University of Northern British Columbia and has been advised to introduce "the milk of human kindness". The interpretation is that what we are writing is on two levels similar to the extraordinary mathematician Lewis Carrol - yes he of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and what Alice found there fame. I'm sure he has been told it's all high falluting mind games.
>
> Now, will it work with our mutually long term unworthy and intractable opponent, the black noise emitter, young Ion. I think the intention is to confuse him - but as he is already the epitome of confusion, I doubt it will work. Top marks to Iliya for trying.
>
> Is this an interlude?
>

I noticed that Ion is still struggling with the hypergeometric, and he
still insists on calculating reciprocal probabilities (often
incorrectly). I doubt we'll see any improvement in his condition. I
think he did go quiet for while though, while he was working on his
vanity publication.

Duncan

[lot...@telus.net]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:06:13 AM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> The concept is extremely simple and you are not fooling anyone, Dr Iliya Bluskov, by pretending you do not understand.

Yes the concept is indeed very simple, and you are the one who is either pretending you do not understand it, or you really do not understand it, which is forgivable, or you are just unable to say or write things like "I was wrong". Try to write the sentence "I was wrong" (do not post it, just try to type it); see how it feels: Do your fingers listen to you? Do you start sweating, feeling nauseated, heartbeat increasing, about to faint?

>
>
>
> Consider a 6/49 Lotto game.
>
>
>
> Playing a distorted set compared to a Partial Cover eg
>
> System 8, Full Wheel Pool 8 or 8c6 consists of -
>
> 28 CombSixes
>
> 56 CombFives repeated 3 times
>
> 70 CombFours repeated 6 times
>
> 10 CombThrees repeated 2 times

Does the last line fit your agenda better? How about 56 CombThrees repeated 10 times?

So if we rewrite the complete system coverage correctly:
28 CombSixes
56 CombFives repeated 3 times = 168 CombFives
70 CombFours repeated 6 times = 420 CombFours
56 CombThrees repeated 10 times = 560 CombThrees

Question: How is this different than the 28 lines partial cover? How does the 5% advantage of your partial cover comes into being? The advantage of your partial cover is exactly 0%. Recall that we assume fixed payoff for all tiers.

Even if we assume pari-mutuel structure, the only feasible effect of repetition will be felt in 5-wins or higher, but recall that according to your pessimistic assumption 5-wins never happen, so how your 5% advantage comes to play is still one big mistery to me.

As an example of the pari-mutuel-effect, let us assume that the payoff for a 3-win is not fixed but it depends on the number of winning tickets. Suppose there were 50,000 3-wins and each paid $6, which means $300,000 were designated to paying the 3-wins, and let us assume that the $300,000 represented 5% of money used to purchase tickets. Now, let us add Mr. X who played the 8 number complete system in 28 combinations ($28) and got three of his numbers drawn, so according to the pay table of the complete system he got not one but ten 3-wins. Let us see what Mr. X gets instead of the $6 per 3-win. The number of 3-wins increased to 50,010; the prize pool increased by 5% of $28 which is $1.40, so we will now have $300,001.40 prize money for 50,010 3-wins, so a 3-win becomes 300,001.40/50,010=$5.9988. Well, that is pretty much still $6....Do you see 5% decrease from playing the complete system?

>
>
>
> Playing a 28 line Partial Cover consists of -
>
> 28 CombSixes
>
> 168 CombFives
>
> 420 CombFours
>
> 560 CombThrees
>
>
>
> The single CombSix randomly drawn from a possible 13,983,816 combinations has -
>
> 1 CombSix
>
> 6 CombFives
>
> 15 CombFours
>
> 20 CombThrees
>
>
>
> The Partial Cover has a better chance of a match and will occur more often because there are NO duplicates.

What will occur more often? The partial cover? Do you believe that knowing English words is a sufficient prerequisite for writing unambiguous sentences?

>
>
>
> The System 8 has less chance of a match and will occur less often because of the duplicates. When a match does occur there will be multiple wins.
>
>
>
> The plain and simple fact is there will on average be less wins for the System 8 and only after considerable draws will the wins even out.
>
>
>
> Your ridiculous position is that for any draw their is an equal chance for the different sets to win a prize.

Huh? Really? Where exactly is my position stated the way you state it right here? It is not the first time you use your imagination to put words in my mouth. My position, which is stated in my books is that playing a system can change the way wins are distributed over time (over many draws); you could also understand it as, more genrally: Changing your way of playing can have effect on the way your wins are distributed over time.

Anyway, I have more to say on the subject, but you do not get it in any way, so I will save some time this time.
Iliya Bluskov

>
>
>
> Your recalcitrant obstinacy to face the TRUTH just defies belief.
>
>
>
> DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736
>
>
>
> ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
>
> FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
>

> ...

[lot...@telus.net]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:06:13 AM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:

>
> The plain and simple fact is there will on average be less wins for the System 8 and only after considerable draws will the wins even out.
>

Really? That plain and that simple... What prohibits the system of having a good burst of wins and gaining advantage in the balance, say in the first draw, or in the second, etc.?

>
>
> Your ridiculous position is that for any draw their is an equal chance for the different sets to win a prize.
>

I have never written anything in particular about comparing 28 combinations of a complete system with 28 of yours whatever you consider good combinations, so I could not have had any position on this particular case, but I do have a position in the general case, so, yes (ignoring "their" which got me a bit confused) that would be my "ridiculous position": In any particular draw 28 combinations have the same chance under fixed payoff scheme (as in all of your simulations and arguments) and the same expected return, equal to 28 times the expected return of one ticket (which is computed in a way you profoundly refuse to understand).

I told you many times in all kind of easy and simple to understand ways where the flaw of your +5% advantage/strategy is: In ignoring the rare events in a way convenient for your strategy; that is how your 5% show up. It is called cooking the books.

Let us say a system gives a burst of wins that significantly changes the balance every 51 draws (simplified situation). By restricting your simulation to 50 draws, you are basically saying: The burst of wins never happens. OK it is not very likely to happen; there will be 1 such burst every 51 draws, but why do you decide to place such a burst outside your simulation? What if it happens the first draw, or the second, or the third etc. By eliminating the good burst, you are artificially introducing bias, basically saying: Every time you play the system 50 times, there will be no burst of wins. Is this true? This means there will be no burst of wins if the system is played 100 times, no burst of wins if the system is played 150 times, etc. Is this true? Alternatively, there will be no burst of wins for any of 2, 3, 100 people who play the system 50 times. Is this true?

Can you address one of my simple questions? Can you comment on one of my paragraphs? So far I have addressed most of your incessant stream of simulations with precise and general comments. Instead of addressing any of mine, way simpler questions, you continue to pour more and more simulations and numbers and badly worded, confusing and ambiguous sentences, and what not, no desire to keep it simple or to address the essence. I hope people know what this means: You either do not have the answers (less likely), or you understand what the correct answers are, but stating the answers will mean admitting to being wrong previously, which, as we established already, is impossible for you.
I know it is not easy being you, still...
Iliya Bluskov

[Colin Fairbrother]

The difference between the Partial Cover and the System 8 is -

CombThrees: 560 DISTINCT versus 56 DISTINCT respectively
CombFours: 420 DISTINCT versus 70 DISTINCT respectively
CombFives: 168 DISTINCT versus 56 DISTINCT respectively

For the 20 CombThrees in the draw the player is more likely to
get a match with 560 in the Partial Cover rather than 56 in the
System 8.

For the 15 CombFours in the draw the player is more likely to get
a match with 420 in the Partial Cover rather than 70 in the
System 8.

For the 6 CombFives in the draw the player is more likely to get
a match with 168 in the Partial Cover rather than 56 in the
System 8.

Let's say two players buy one line once from each set at 28
different locations for the same draw.

For both sets each of the lines has optimal subsets per LOCATION.

However, both players are concerned with their OVERALL RETURN for
the draw.

OVERALL -
the Partial Pool player has 560 DISTINCT CombThrees versus 56
DISTINCT for the System 8 -
the Partial Pool player has 420 DISTINCT CombFours versus 70
DISTINCT for the System 8 -
the Partial Pool player has 168 DISTINCT CombFives versus 56
DISTINCT for the System 8

Refering to my post earlier in this thread

Estimating Grouped Prizes Return in Lotto for specified Draws and

Set of Numbers Played.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/d4t2Jrwwhf8J

The correct number of subsets are given there as in -

"This Full Wheel has a lot of repetition of the subsets. Instead
of 560 distinct CombThrees there are only 56 repeated 10 times.
Instead of 420 distinct CombFours there are only 70 repeated 6
times. Instead of 168 CombFives there are only 56 repeated 3
times. Many Covers or Wheels have excessive repetition of the
subsets."

Bluskov is getting pretty desperate when he reads intention into
a typo.

Now,let's get a few things straight Iliya Bluskov -
we are on planet Earth -
we have tested each set against the 13,983,816 possibilities and
arrived at the probability for each prize group -
multiplying the probability of the prize group (including the
no-prize group) by the number of draws under consideration will
give probabilities, which are used to allocate wins equal to the
number of draws on the most likely basis.

NO PRIZE GROUP IS EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WINNING PRIZE GROUP PER DRAW.
FOR MULTIPLE DRAWS THE ALLOCATION TO PRIZE GROUPS IS BASED ON THE
PROBABILITY AND THIS CAN BE MORE THAN 1 TO A PRIZE GROUP.
THE TOTAL PRIZE GROUP ALLOCATION MUST EQUAL THE NUMBER OF DRAWS

The most likely prizes for 36 draws are -
System 8: No prizes for 34 draws and 2 match-3 x 10 for 2 draws
ie 20 match-3's
Partial Cover: No prizes for 20 draws, match-3 x 1 for 13 draws,
match-3 x 2 for 2 draws and match-4 x 1 for 1 draw.

The prize values are standard as given by the UK National
Lottery -
match-3 £25, match-4 £100 and match-5 £1,000 and the cost is £2
per ticket.

Now, consider the 20 trials for both the System 8 and Partial
Cover once again.

The Partial Cover gives better results for 15 of the 20 trials ie
75%

The Partial Cover has a minimum of 13 match-3's in 1 trial
whereas the System 8 has 4 trials with absolutely nothing.

The Partial Cover gives the best result for any trial of 17
match-3's + 2 match-4's + 1 match-5 (£1,625); the best for the
System 8 is 36 match-3's + 6 match-4's (£1,500).

The Partial Cover gives the best result for all 20 trials of 341
match-3's + 27 match 4's + 3 match-5's (£14,225); for the System
8 it is 356 match-3's + 6 match-4's (£9,5000 - a difference of
£4,725.

The Partial Cover gives the best average return per trial of
£711.25 compared to the System 8 of £475.

The Partial Cover performs the best for the 720 draws or 20,160
plays with a Yield or Percentage Return of 14225/40320 = 35.28%
compared to the System 8 of 9500/40320 = 23.56%

The Partial Cover has an average per trial of 17 match-3's + 1
match-4 (0.15 match-5's) which is near enough to the 17 match-3's
and 1 match-4 estimated; the System 8 has 18 match-3's (0.3
match-4's) which is close to the 20 estimated.

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED

http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 12:23:35 AM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> The difference between the Partial Cover and the System 8 is -
>
>
>
> CombThrees: 560 DISTINCT versus 56 DISTINCT respectively
>

As usual, line after line of numbers, interpreted wrong. DISTINCT, DISTINCT; you raise this word in almost cult status; so 560 distinct versus 56 distinct each repeated 10 times (=560). Where is the difference if the payoff for a 3-win is the fixed £25 and 560 threes are covered in both cases? OK, distinct will have the 3-wins distributed differently over time; this does not contradict to what I say, which is: The way one plays can change the way wins are distributed over time. What you cannot get is that this does not change the return per ticket or per a set of tickets. Any time a non-repeated 3 is hit you get only one 3-win; every time the complete 8 number system hits (say, 10 times less often), there will be ten 3-wins instead (10 times more).

The rest of your posting is repetition of your "short trial" argument, your "ignoring the rare events" argument, your "snake oil 5% advantage" argument; your "I do not know anything about probability" argument, your "I am too stubborn to get it" argument, your "I am too sick to admit I am wrong" argument, your "I am having a mental block" argument. Get a second opinion, get help. Find a specialist who will read this tread and support your point; I do not. Because without anyone backing you up, your statement "Professor Bluskov promotes deceitful claims" is libelous. I have put enough material here for people with brains to think and decide whether your "proportionality argument" makes sense. Your writing and your arithmetic is flawed enough to undermine the credibility of your statements (the lottery related ones, but it goes to everything, I guess).

[Colin Fairbrother]

Au contraire Dr Iliya Bluskov.

You've shown yourself to be an utter fool, rambling on about
testing for 14,000,000 draws when in the whole existence of Lotto
there is less than 25,000 draws. I really have never heard such
fluff and waffle from a supposedly intelligent person in my whole
life. Whers's your facts? Where's your figures? Where's your
data? Where is something other than deviousness and deceit?

If I was employing you then in less than a day I would have found
out your measure and be telling you to watch your rear as you
exited the building.

I have a database with 14,000,000 Random Selections generated
using the Merzenne Twister algorithm. Maybe you should refresh
your memory a bit and realize the relevance of e.
Random Lotto Numbers using the Mersenne Twister
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=661

Your ignorance of just basic things like 56 Pick 6 Random
Selections from 49 gives a consistent 3if6 coverage of close to
65%

Bluff and bluster don't work with me. I've taken on a QC in court
and won. From my experience a magistrate or judge would be
repeatedly telling you to answer the question and stop rambling -
almost incoherently.

You think I can't use your name to identify you as the author of
the greatest Lotto con-artist speil of this century. Well, as
stated in the first post in this thread you stuck your face into
my letterbox and ruffled me because I realized you were using
your qualification and university position to promote Lotto
garbage. The denunciation of Lotto con-artists is my hobby.

You think that other mathematicians agree with what you are
doing? Boy how naive you are!

Unlike you - I test, then I test again. I don't just surmise like
you. For some code in Visual Basic I will check it out in Access
or Visual Basic using SQL or in SQL-Server using Transact SQL. I
work realistically.

Most of the Lotto enthusiasts here and even at Lotto wierdsville,
http://www.LottoPoster.com, where you are the favourite pinup
boy, are familiar with backtesting. I was extremely careful to
make sure the trials were fair. Where do you detect any cause for
concern? You just have a stock answer that everthing must be done
over 14 million draws. Whako! Whako! Whako!

If you have a problem with my trials then you need to spell it
out not just dismiss it. Within this newsgroup there must be
quite a few who wonder what the hell you are on about.

You need to get analytical or just shutup. I realize you want to
have the last say in this thread - well that ain't going to
happen soon because I have plenty more goodies to raise about
your con-artist capers. Fairbrother's Law of Proportionality, as
you call it, works, is in accordance with the trials and has
basically bitten you on the arse.

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 5:08:33 AM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Au contraire Dr Iliya Bluskov.
>
>
>
> You've shown yourself to be an utter fool, rambling on about
>
> testing for 14,000,000 draws when in the whole existence of Lotto
>
> there is less than 25,000 draws.

Poor me, do not know what I am talking about, eh?

> I really have never heard such
>
> fluff and waffle from a supposedly intelligent person in my whole
>
> life.

Wonder how many of those intelligent persons you know; either that or you are too young.

Whers's your facts? Where's your figures? Where's your
>
> data? Where is something other than deviousness and deceit?
>

Gee, I do not know; where did I put those? Perhaps, check above? Is short memory still in place?

Deviousness and deceit, eh? That is called projection. You are trying to project whatever you do and whatever you feel is wrong with you to the other person, whoever is willing to provide you with the attention.

>
>
> If I was employing you then in less than a day I would have found
>
> out your measure and be telling you to watch your rear as you
>
> exited the building.

Thanks God you are not employing me! But I am sure those who you employed had enough hard times, probably your family too. Never planned to work for a dictator anyway.

See, your mild condition is quite common to all kind of totalitarian figures, including Fuhrers (or should I say Leiters, to avoid the association), Rulers, Napoleons, Presidents, and Dictators. Combined with bad/non-democratic politics they all managed to wreak havoc in the life of millions. That kind of guys wanted to burn Galileo some four centuries ago for believing the earth is round.

>
>
>
> I have a database with 14,000,000 Random Selections generated
>
> using the Merzenne Twister algorithm. Maybe you should refresh

Oh-ohoo, are you about to show yourself to be an utter fool, rambling on about

testing for 14,000,000 draws when in the whole existence of Lotto

there is less than 25,000 draws? Or it just feels good talking about yourself and your great contributions to the exploitation of Mersenne Twister pseudorandom number generator (which by the way fails some randomness tests)

>
> your memory a bit and realize the relevance of e.
>
> Random Lotto Numbers using the Mersenne Twister
>
> http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=661
>
>
>
> Your ignorance of just basic things like 56 Pick 6 Random
>
> Selections from 49 gives a consistent 3if6 coverage of close to
>
> 65%

Yes, you can say that; I am completely ignorant on things that I have no slightest interest in, sue me. Although it seems I know something about a 683 pick-6 random selections which gives a consistent coverage of 20 3if6 coverage of close to 74% of the time.

>
>
>
> Bluff and bluster don't work with me. I've taken on a QC in court
>
> and won. From my experience a magistrate or judge would be
>
> repeatedly telling you to answer the question and stop rambling -
>
> almost incoherently.

Is not that what I repeatedly tell you?

>
>
>
> You think I can't use your name to identify you as the author of
>
> the greatest Lotto con-artist speil of this century. Well, as
>
> stated in the first post in this thread you stuck your face into
>
> my letterbox and ruffled me because I realized you were using
>
> your qualification and university position to promote Lotto
>
> garbage. The denunciation of Lotto con-artists is my hobby.
>
>

You can start with yourself, perform some auto-denunciation.

>
> You think that other mathematicians agree with what you are
>
> doing? Boy how naive you are!

Your humble servant Sir! Dust in your feet.
I will dare no more.

>
>
>
> Unlike you - I test, then I test again. I don't just surmise like
>
> you. For some code in Visual Basic I will check it out in Access
>
> or Visual Basic using SQL or in SQL-Server using Transact SQL. I
>
> work realistically.

The only problem is you find it somewhat difficult to find followers.
I wonder why could that be... Definitely not because your theories fail the brilliance test, no way! Must have something to do with those little insignificant creatures who just fail to recognize the Greatness.

>
>
>
> Most of the Lotto enthusiasts here and even at Lotto wierdsville,

Self-depreciating humor? I cannot believe my eyes/ears!

>
> http://www.LottoPoster.com, where you are the favourite pinup
>
> boy, are familiar with backtesting. I was extremely careful to
>
> make sure the trials were fair. Where do you detect any cause for
>
> concern? You just have a stock answer that everthing must be done
>
> over 14 million draws. Whako! Whako! Whako!

Sweet shouting... That is what got me here on a first place. I read it as a cry for help, but it was only cry for attention.

>
>
>
> If you have a problem with my trials then you need to spell it
>
> out not just dismiss it. Within this newsgroup there must be

Oh boy, did not I? A grade two kid would understand my "spelling it",
but not a person who decided his life depend on it...

>
> quite a few who wonder what the hell you are on about.

I am not sure about the "quite a few" bit, but I somehow noticed no one rushes to defend your proven 5% strategy, and no one seems interested to read deep into your musings; people try to have life, I guess.

>
>
>
> You need to get analytical or just shutup. I realize you want to

Advice taken :-) Never been analytical in my life apparently, but it sounds good, so I will give it a try. I have to take some schooling from you on what "analytical" means though, to start with.

>
> have the last say in this thread - well that ain't going to
>

> happen soon because I have plenty ...

of ... obsession.

[lot...@telus.net]

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:03:54 AM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:

> ... to promote utter garbage by duping the naive and gullible into thinking there is > some credibility to your lesser Pool Cover nonsense.

Hypocrisy at its best! Very credible statement from someone who is selling 5% odds improving strategy at his site and charging membership fees. Speaking of the naive and gullible... I am one, obviously, letting you use my name to attract more traffic to your flawed claims there (I cannot even say "utter garbage"; it is not in my vocabulary...)

Here is some more:

> Hmmm, Deceitfulness, that word rings a bell.

> I admire Bill - he's a fighter for truth. I believe that is what I am as well. There's no > money in it - but that is not the motivation.

Fighter for the truth, how could I miss the connection? Sweet dreams, Mister. You were just about to win it for the truth, and then you woke up...

Do not forget why I am here: You believe that you have invented a 5% odds improving strategy which you sell at your site, you also believe that in the process it is OK to abuse anyone (book author) and anything (science) as long as it boosts your sales and helps you in attracting attention and promoting yourself. I hope it works well for you at the end. Just drop the hypocrisy; you are not dealing with idiots; I thought I should explicitly mention it, because you might have failed to notice it, just like you fail to recognize truths and knowledge.

> That you should do that could be of interest to the media and if they become involved
> they will contact other mathematicians, who will corroborate my position.

Sure, sure; they will corroborate your position; just abuse someone's intelligence long and hard enough, and they will rush to the opportunity.

[Colin Fairbrother]

Continuing from my post 23/1/2004 titled

Estimating Grouped Prizes Return in Lotto for specified Draws and
Set of Numbers Played

See
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/d4t2Jrwwhf8J

The draws to date in the UK Lotto game are 1902 and applying the
exact same Partial Cover and Full Wheel as in the link above it
is interesting to know what each player would have got back
playing those sets since 19/11/1994.

To keep it simple I use the current cost of £2 per ticket and
payouts of £25 for a match-3, £100 for a match-4 and £1,000 for a
match-5.

The structure of both sets is what is important as normally you
would randomize the actual numbers used from the 49; generally it
doesn't matter what numbers are used. The important details are
that the Partial Cover uses all 49 numbers, has no CombThrees
repeated and is maximized for coverage against all of the
13,983,816 possible CombSixes from which 1 is randomly drawn. The
Full Wheel or System 8 uses only 8 of the 49 numbers and has lots
of repeat paying subsets.

The theoretical calculation is for 1 line per draw, which can't
be distorted. Generally, mathematicians will stipulate at least
Random Selections as fitting the bill for calculations as the
probabilities are close to those for 1 line per draw multiplied
by the number of draws.

For the System 8 the combinations covered can be worked out
theoretically without testing against all 13,983,816
possibilities but if done the probabilities are the same per
group.

Multiplying the probability by 1902 draws we get 1902 most likely
occurrences -

6 5 4 3 Total Probability Most Likely 4's 3's
- - - - 13327132 0.9530397 1813 - -
- - - 10 596960 0.0426893 81 - 810
- - 6 16 57400 0.0041047 8 48 128
- 3 15 10 2296 0.0001642 - - -
1 12 15 0 28 0.0000020 - - -

In a trial over 1902 draws we are expecting 938 match-3's and 48
match-4's.

Actual results in UK Lotto for the System 8, 28 lines per draw -
Match-3's: 950
Match-4's: 30
Match-5's: Nil
Total Winnings: £23,750 + £3,000 = £26750
Percentage Return or Yield (Winnings/Cost): £26,750/£106512 =
25.11%
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analysing the 28 line Partial Cover set by testing against the
13,983,816 possible combinations of six integers in a 6/49 Lotto
game and then multiplying the probability by 1902 we get 1902
most likely occurrences -

6 5 4 3 Total Probability Most Likely 5's 4's
3's
- - - - 7571012 0.5414124 1030 - - -
- - - 1 5225888 0.3737097 711 - -
711
- - - 2 759408 0.0543062 103 - -
206
- - - 3 39728 0.0028410 5 - -
15
- - - 4 1268 0.0000907 - - - -
- - 1 0-1 379260 0.0271214 52 - 52 -
- 1 - - 7224 0.0005166 1 1 - -
1 - - - 28 0.0000020 - - - -

In a trial over 1902 draws we are expecting 932 match-3's, 52
match-4's
and 1 match-5.

Actual results in UK Lotto for the Partial Cover, 28 lines per
draw -
Match-3's: 939
Match-4's: 68
Match-5's: 2
Total Winnings: £23,475 + £6,800 + £2000 = £32,275
Percentage Return or Yield (Winnings/Cost): £32,275/£106,512 =
30.30%

Difference between the two sets over 1902 draws is: 30.30% -
25.11% = 5.19%

To me that looks very much like a real 5%.

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.LottoToWin.com

[lot...@telus.net]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 10:49:57 PM UTC-7, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
> Continuing from my post 23/1/2004 titled
>
> Estimating Grouped Prizes Return in Lotto for specified Draws and
>
> Set of Numbers Played
>
> See
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.lottery/TVhINzsP0hI/d4t2Jrwwhf8J
>
>
>
> The draws to date in the UK Lotto game are 1902 and applying the
>
> exact same Partial Cover and Full Wheel as in the link above it
>
> is interesting to know what each player would have got back
>
> playing those sets since 19/11/1994.
>
>
>
> To keep it simple I use the current cost of £2 per ticket and
>
> payouts of £25 for a match-3, £100 for a match-4 and £1,000 for a
>
> match-5.
>
>
>
> The structure of both sets is what is important as normally you
>
> would randomize the actual numbers used from the 49; generally it
>
> doesn't matter what numbers are used.

It does; in any experiment that involves less than all of the possible 13,983,816 draws, the choice of numbers matters, and that is exactly what you do in all of your simulations; plus you take just a small sample of all possible draws.

Actual results based on ONE PARTICULAR SELECTION of 8 numbers, not on all possible C(49,8)=450,978,066 selections of 8 out of 49 numbers. This one particular selection UNDERPERFORMED in the expected 4-wins (30 as opposed to 48 expected, but expected according to your understanding)
The expected return is not computed the way you do; your way is "the proportionality law", the law of "ignoring the rare events" and it is flawed. There is no reason to omit something that happens once every 2296 times in an experiment that involves 1902 trials, because the rare event can come in the first trial of your experiment, in the second etc.; if you could wrap your head around this, it will be great. There will be many sets of 8 where exactly that will happen; in your chosen, it did not; well tough luck.

Actual results based on ONE PARTICULAR SELECTION of 28 combs on all 49 numbers numbers, NOT ON ALL SUCH POSSIBLE SELECTIONS. This one particular selection OVERPERFORMED in the expected 4-wins area (68 as opposed to 52 expected, but expected according to your understanding) and in the expected 5-wins area (2 as opposed to 1). This only depends on the particular choice of your 28 combinations. The expected return is again done based on your flawed "proportionality law" There will be many sets of 28 combinations on all 49 numbers which meet your requirements but will produce much lower return. Your chosen set was LUCKY. Something like moderate cooking of the book, combined with seriously flawed experiment and seriously flawed way of computing return; just for almost innocently sounding 5%. Does not look quite outrageous, but sounds believable, the guy must be onto something your clients would think.

Anyway, everyone here is fully aware that the outcome of your experiment will have quite different balance if
1) performed by any selection of 28 combinations for both the 8 and 49 number ways, but over all possible 13,983,816 draws (then the balance will be absolutely equal)
2) performed by selecting different sets of 8 numbers for the complete system
3) performed by selecting different 28 combinations for the 49 number system

If I have the 1902 draws and apply either of 2) or 3) or both, then I can provide you with selections that show advantage of the complete system measured by thousands of percents, and it can certainly done in the other direction; to show similar advantage of the 49 numbers system. What would that prove? Nothing. Which is the same that you are proving by any published "experiment" or "simulation" so far. An experiment is not a proof; I have spoken about that, and especially if it is biased, incomplete and flawed as in all of your examples so far.

Anyway, I am getting really tired of repeating simple truths to you; you just ignore what was written before, pushing the old simulation again and again. This will soon render the thread unreadable, no one will be able to follow it and recover the truth; perhaps that is what you want, right? So, more simulation please. The world needs to know more about your great strategy.

>
> Difference between the two sets over 1902 draws is: 30.30% -
>
> 25.11% = 5.19%
>
>
>
> To me that looks very much like a real 5%.

Yes, to you; that is a good enough excuse for everything you do and say.

>
>
>
> Colin Fairbrother
>
> http://www.LottoToWin.com

[Colin Fairbrother]

Pretty obvious Bluskov is getting more desperate and even more
incoherent.

I chose a completely neutral source for the 28 line Partial
Cover - see -
John Rawson's RECORD 3 MATCH 6/49 NUMBER LOTTERY WHEELS
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/honest.john/

Prior to now I hadn't even bothered to look at the 28 lines by
Adolf Muehl but doing so, I notice they are in a completely
transparent and innocent first column order. Hard to read a
conspiracy into that.

For the System 8 it is a simple lexicograhic enumeration.
Couldn't be more transparent.

Conspiracy theories - hah! First sign of madness - nah! Already
seen that.

Guess I'll have to do Canada next, or South Africa or Germany or
various states in the USA.

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

Colin Fairbrother

http://www.ColinFairbrother.com
http://www.LottoPoster.com
http://www.LottoToWin.com

[Colin Fairbrother]

I'll give you the opportunity to correct what you've written in this post before tearing it to pieces.

The Key word you are familiar with - isomorphic.

Have a little think and modify if you think it necessary.

There is a chance that when I get up of a morning that a light plane has been stolen and the idiot pilot has a brick with him that he releases while passing over just about where my house is. I still get up.

Colin Fairbrother

[Colin Fairbrother]

We know that Bluskov likes to talk about a "Guarantee" that is only a possible Guarantee before the draw in the Lotto game you are playing and only MAY apply after the draw. This dates back to his thesis of 1997, New Designs and Coverings, where he makes the infamous comparison of random selections from 14 numbers, while trying to justify his non guarantee in a 6/49 Lotto game.

I wrote with regard to a System 8 or Full Wheel 8 in a 6/49 Lotto game, "The structure of both sets is what is important as normally you would randomize the actual numbers used from the 49; generally it doesn't matter what numbers are used."

Bluskov replied, "It does; in any experiment that involves less than all of the possible 13,983,816 draws, the choice of numbers matters, and that is exactly what you do in all of your simulations; plus you take just a small sample of all possible draws."

Before the draw all 49 numbers are just as likely to be picked as are all combinations of three. If some numbers are considered more likely, then this is the realm of fortune telling, hocus pocus predictions and the occult. We know Bluskov is a fellow traveller and apologist - is he now a believer?

Paste the C(8,6,6,6,1)= 28 in Covermaster change the Pool to 49, Pick to 6, Match to 3 and Hits to 6. Now click on Test and observe the CombSixes covered from 13,983,816 are 656,684 ie 4.69603%.

Now click on Randomize and make sure the Pool is on 49 before pressing Test. No matter how many times you Randomize - 450,978,066 if you follow Bluskov's suggestion = the coverage will be the same. The set is referred to as being isomorphic as Bluskov well knows, but what's another bit of deception or deviousness to him when he is so full of it.

For the Partial Cover all the numbers are used so volatility of a small band of numbers is not an issue. However, the abnormal structure of the System 8, with excessive subset repeats, will effect your chances of a match and it may well be for some draws, if the same 8 numbers are played, there will be a drought. I actually introduced this measurement back in 2004 as Max Plays No Wins or Max Draws No Wins. For the 1902 draws in the UK Lotto we have a maximum of 96 for Max Draws No Wins for the System 8 compared to just 11 for the Partial Cover.

For calculating most likely wins for the set of numbers played I have started a page that explains in detail my method, see -

CALCULATING LIKELY WINS IN LOTTO FOR 1 LINE
OR OPTIMUM STRUCTURED SETS
OR DISTORTED SETS
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=739

Testing at 28 draw intervals the UK Lotto Random Selections or Draws in Covermaster will show a consistent 3if6 Coverage of around 41% to 42% and an extremely consistent 5if6 of 7252 or 0.05186%. (There are 1,906,884 possible CombFives for a 6/49 Lotto game and for the 1902 UK draws only 29 are duplicated). In other words the 1902 draws are remarkably homogeneous and an excellent sample. Bear in mind for a population of 1 million people we only need a sample of 384 and for 14 million that sample is still OK.

THE STIPULATION OF ILIYA BLUSKOV TO TEST OVER 14,000,000 DRAWS IS RIDICULOUS. THE SET BEING PLAYED HAS ALREADY BEEN TESTED OVER THE 13,983,816 DRAW POSSIBILITIES TO OBTAIN THE GROUPINGS.

From the Prize Table for the System 8 Bluskov refers to a match-5 as occurring "once in 2296 times". There is something radically wrong with his understanding of the Prize Table as it should be 2296 in 13,983,816 or once in 6091. Another deliberate bit of deception or just plain deviousness?

For those that haven't realized it Bluskov criticizes my method for calculating likely prizes but shows no method himself. In fact he has to use my method because he has none himself! He raves on about multiplying the probability arrived at by dividing the total for a group by 13,983,816 in effect taking it back to the total. If the totals are proportionately reduced to a prize required in a group the results are no different to my more simpler method. WHAT IS HE ON ABOUT?

I challenge him to produce one set of 8 numbers that would have produced 2 match-5's over the UK Lotto draws using the System 8 construction.

CALCULATING LIKELY WINS IN LOTTO FOR 1 LINE
OR OPTIMUM STRUCTURED SETS
OR DISTORTED SETS
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=739

DECEPTIVE LOTTO WHEEL CLAIMS BY PROF ILIYA BLUSKOV
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=736

ESTIMATING GROUPED PRIZES RETURN IN LOTTO
FOR SPECIFIED DRAWS AND SET OF NUMBERS PLAYED
http://lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=737

Colin Fairbrother
http://www.ColinFairbrother.com
http://www.LottoPoster.com
http://www.LottoToWin.com

Colin Fairbrother

[lot...@telus.net]

> I wrote with regard to a System 8 or Full Wheel 8 in a 6/49 Lotto game, "The structure of both sets is what is important as normally you would randomize the actual numbers used from the 49; generally it doesn't matter what numbers are used."

I agree that YOU wrote it, but it is wrong! The choice of numbers matters a lot. Your choice is called "cooking the books".

>
> Bluskov replied, "It does; in any experiment that involves less than all of the possible 13,983,816 draws, the choice of numbers matters, and that is exactly what you do in all of your simulations; plus you take just a small sample of all possible draws."
>

>
>

> Paste the C(8,6,6,6,1)= 28 in Covermaster change the Pool to 49, Pick to 6, Match to 3 and Hits to 6. Now click on Test and observe the CombSixes covered from 13,983,816 are 656,684 ie 4.69603%.
>
>
>
> Now click on Randomize and make sure the Pool is on 49 before pressing Test. No matter how many times you Randomize - 450,978,066 if you follow Bluskov's suggestion = the coverage will be the same.

Well, wrong! What if the set of 8 contains one of the 1920 draws tested? Read below.

The set is referred to as being isomorphic as Bluskov well knows, but what's another bit of deception or deviousness to him when he is so full of it.
>

I am not sure you understand isomorphism well enough, just like anything else; first of all isomorphism can only exist between two or more structures; "isomorphic" is not a property associated with one structure.

>
> For those that haven't realized it Bluskov criticizes my method for calculating likely prizes but shows no method himself. In fact he has to use my method because he has none himself!

Really? Severe memory problems or "plain deviousness"? The only correct way was demonstrated several times above, links to pages where the method is explained and applied by experts was also given; the flaws of your "proportionality law" were discussed many times as well, including on examples that a 2-grader would understand; not good enough for you?

>
> I challenge him to produce one set of 8 numbers that would have produced 2 match-5's over the UK Lotto draws using the System 8 construction.
>

> Colin Fairbrother

No this is not the challenge. The challenge is that I am dealing with a quite challenged already man, who just does not get it, who is the master of deception, the master of twisting the truth, the master of avoiding the issue, the master of not addressing the direct questions, the master of pouring tons of unrelated simulations and calculations to obscure the easy and clear and precise mathematical facts, the believer in "repeating a false statement hundred of times makes it the truth".

Here is an answer to your challenge: In your cooked simulation you chose randomly (perhaps, perhaps not?) 8 numbers and ran them against 1902 UK draws. There was no 5-win. OK, there are many 8-sets that would have hit the jackpot, not just a 5-win: For every 6 numbers in a draw, there are C(43,2)=903 ways to choose two other numbers to form a set of 8, which gives a total of 1902(903)=1,717,506 sets of 8 which would have hit the jackpot. Your chosen one was not one of these...

Now, you are aware that when the complete system hits 5, then there are three 5-wins, so one hit of 5 automatically produces not two but three 5-wins. Let us compute the number of 8-sets that would have produced three 5-wins. In fact, any 8-set that has 5 numbers in common with one of the 1902 draws would have produced three 5-wins. There are 1902(6)=11,412 5-sets contained within all of the 1902 draws. There are C(44,3)=13,244 ways to choose the remaining 8-5=3 numbers of such an 8-set for a total of 11,412(13,244)=151,140,528 8-sets each of which would have produced at least once three 5-wins and would have shown considerable advantage even over your "random" combinations. Your chosen 8-set was not among these either; what a surprise; you chose one of the remaining 450,978,066-151,140,528=299,837,538 8-sets; a fluke, I guess?

OK, this was one of your directions of cooking the books. The other direction is: Your random combinations could have been chosen in hundreds of millions ways that would not have produced two (or even one) 5-win, Did that happen? No... Why, because, you would not have had a point then, there would not have been anything to attract people to your great "strategy", right?

In any case, one example out of the enormous number of choices, 450,978,066*X (where X is the number of ways to choose 28 combinations that meet your criteria, whatever these may be; I would note that X will be much larger than 450 million...) tested over a small fraction of all possible draws does not prove ANYTHING.

Enough education, I guess; it does not get through anyway. Any further comments from me will only be on statements backed up by mathematicians. Find one who supports any of your claims on advantages of your strategy or rejects any of my claims about these "advantages" and we can talk more. So far you have only proven you can waste people's time. What can I say more: You are either delusional, or deceiving, as usual; in both cases, you are of more interest to the medical sciences people. Too sad that your obsession with the lottery has led you to obsession with my modest persona. Fortunately, time cures everything. Energies will be depleted and we will cease to exists. All that remain would be the evidence of utterly aggressive ignorance that you keep exhibiting here. If that is what matters to you so be it. Meanwhile, I suggest you to find someone else to stalk: Gail Howard, Prof Jones, Ken Silver (oh, you would not, he sells something similar to your "system"), or make a court case, if your intelligence is offended in any way by my combinatorial lottery systems books: I will be happy to testify to any group of experts, say, one including a mathematician and a psychiatrist will certainly do. You have exhausted your options with me.
Iliya Bluskov