Reducing The Odds
IXL Software
reduce the odds against a player winning a lottery jackpot is to purchase
more tickets (chances). Is that really so?
The reasoning goes something like this:
If I buy 1 ticket on a 649 lottery draw, that ticket has odds of
13,983,816:1 of matching the jackpot numbers.
If I buy 10 tickets for the very same draw, my overall odds now become
1,398,381.6:1. If I buy 1000 tickets for the very same draw, my overall odds
now become 13,983.816:1...and so on.
This logic is essentially saying that I can have a 1,000% improvement of the
odds in my favour by covering only a very tiny percentage (0.00715%) of the
possible outcomes. Don't those numbers look just a little out of whack...in
fact extremely disproportionate?
Consider this: it is entirely possible to purchase 13,983,815 different
tickets and *still* not win the jackpot! You will of course have a hell of a
lot of smaller prizes...but not the big one. Imagine the embarrassment.
Assuming that the minimum match of winning numbers must be at least 3, it is
theoretically possible to purchase 13,723,192 tickets and not win so much as
a goddamn
penny! Incredible as it may seem, that's over 98% coverage of all possible
outcomes with nothing to show for it. I have no idea of how one could go
about purposely trying to win nothing on such a large wager. In this case,
losing everything seems more daunting a task than winning anything. Strange
game...is it not?
Do we begin to see how this "more tickets" logic breaks down pretty rapidly?
This is why I believe that the common basic assumption is incorrect. You
simply
cannot use the aggregate total of chances to properly calculate the overall
odds. You end up with a distorted picture that is out of phase with reality.
I believe that the correct way to interpret the odds is to say that each
ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*. In other words, if you
play
1,000 tickets, you have 1,000 *separate (but equal)* chances of 1 in
13,983,816 at the
jackpot...not an aggregate chance of 1 in 13,983.816.
The difference in interpretations is subtle and difficult to adequately
describe but I'm hoping that at least a few people out there can understand
what I'm driving at. The implications of one being true over the other are
huge...if given but a little thought...something that is generally
conspicuous by its absence around these parts.
Note that using an analogy such as a mixture of red and blue marbles in a
jar would be inappropriate for the purpose of counter-argument. That would
be like comparing the probabilities or odds between 2 similar but very
different card games such as Poker and Bridge...even though they both use
the exact same deck of 52 cards...or Chess and Checkers...even though they
both use the exact same playing board and number of playing pieces.
TRUE REDUCTION OF ODDS
========================
The only way to truly reduce the player's odds is to reduce the number of
possible outcomes. The only way to accomplish this is by artificial means
that are commonly called "guessing". That's why it's called a game of
chance...or gambling on an unknown outcome.
Does such a thing exist? The answer is conditionally Yes. Here are a few
examples:
We all enjoy a natural reduction of odds that is conditional on a simple
assumption. The assumption is that the exact same 6 winning numbers will not
be randomly drawn within (or even beyond) the period of a human lifetime at
a rate of 2 draws per week. In practical terms, this means that you can
subtract the number of actual results that have already been drawn from the
total of possible outcomes. In the case of the Canadian 649 lottery, there
will have been 2,214 draw results by the time this is posted. Based on that
assumption, this means that the effective number of outcomes for draw 2,215
will be 13,981,602. Not a *big* reduction by any means...but a reduction
nonetheless for as long as the conditional assumption remains true. To my
mind at least, there is little use in playing lines that have already been
drawn.
Another example is the application of certain criteria that will either
accept or reject any combination of 6 numbers for consideration as worthy
lines to play. These criteria are most often referred to as "filters".
One of the most basic filters is the *sum of the line*. This sum ranges from
a minimum of 21 to a maximum of 279. Once the number of combinations for
each of those sums is calculated, it is easy to plot the results on a graph.
The resulting graph represents the classic "bell" curve that is the classic
statistician's bread & butter. In the case of a 649 lottery, the sums peak
at 150 with 165,772 lines that sum to that total. The remaining sums fall
off equally and perfectly symmetrically on either side of that sum. This is
not mere coincidence. I have seen many subscribers here reject this fact as
either useless or meaningless. They are entitled to that opinion, but I have
never seen even *1* of those proponents offer any clear evidence or
mathematical proof to support their belief. In stark contrast to that
glaring deficiency, I submit the following evidence in support of my claim:
If a player simply restricts their played lines to a sum between 100-199,
this results in 12,169,389 lines that pass the filter. This results in a
nearly 13% reduction in eligible lines and consequently a nearly 15%
improvement of the odds in the players' favour. Notice that this is very
much a clearly *positive* improvement over the concept of merely purchasing
more tickets as described above. Simple arithmetic shows that about 87% of
all the possible lines are covered.
Practical "real" results show that in the Canadian 649, 1,919 of 2,213 draws
to date (86.71%) have had a sum that conforms to this requirement. In fact,
the last 18 consecutive draws have produced results that conform to this
requirement. For the UK649, 842 of 969 draws to date (86.89%) have obeyed
this simple requirement. Up until the most recent draw, 26 previous
consecutive draws fell within the requirement. Would anyone care to reject a
15% improvement of odds for somewhere between 8 or 9 out of every 10 draws?
If so...why? Kindly describe your reasoning with the same detail that I have
attempted here. The possibility always exists that I am totally mistaken.
I'll be the 1st to accept that possibility and will gladly acknowledge any
contrary opinion. Teach me something that I don't already know...I beg of
you. This place offers so little intellectual stimulation other than the
easily predictable and inevitable ego conflicts that prevail here.
I have further examples to offer, but I'll see what the reaction is before
saying anything further. Is it wrong to identify such a strong correlation
between the theoretical and the actual? I invite anyone to show proof that
my line of reasoning is faulty for whatever reason. Keep it clean and try to
stick to facts rather than personality.
Would you rather read material of this kind or the kind of garbage that
small minds produce when they actually have nothing at all to say that will
benefit anyone other than their own perverse needs? In the end, you get the
kind of group that you both make and deserve.
Nik Barker
Paul
The only problem I can see with your question/analysis/ponderings
above, is the way you end it:
"...or the kind of garbage small minds produce..."
There were a zillion different ways to end that post and even make a
similar point, at the end that is, but you chose one of arrogance, of
talking down to the rest.
So while I find your post interesting in many aspects, it's
disappointing to have to start mine with the above critique.
Anyway having said that I'll continue.
I don't think there's any argument that there are 13,983,816 possible
outcomes before each and every draw takes place.
Your chance of matching that outcome are written variously as:
1 in 13,983,816
13,983,816:1
13,983,816/1
Assuming that only one draw takes place each time, the '1' in the above
notations refers to the assumption that you have purchased 1 ticket for
that draw. That's why the odds are 'to 1'
Your point is one I have also struggled with, and in the same manner,
in that it doesn't seem quite right, there's something that just keeps
niggling me about it.
However, I believe that the numbers don't lie. Let's suppose I increase
my tickets to 2.
*My* odds for that draw are now 2 in 13,983,816. Is this not the same
as me buying 1 ticket in a different lottery somewhere that only has
6,991,908 possible outcomes?
Another way I found to justify to myself that despite that niggling
feeling, the more tickets answer is correct, is this:
If in a 6/49 lotto I were to purchase 6,991,908 tickets (each with a
different combination) I would have purchased 50% of the possible
outcomes. *My* odds for the ensuing draw would be now 6,991,908 in
13,983,816 or 1 in 2. If I have 50% of the possible outcomes then that
is the same as 'purchasing heads' where the possible outcomes are
either 'heads' or 'tails'.
So my conclusion to the above would be this. If it is true that when I
buy just 1 ticket my odds for the game are 1 in 13,983,816 AND if it is
also true that if I were to buy 6,991,908 tickets then my odds for the
game are 1 in 2, then it must be true that in all circumstances where I
were to purchase a number of tickets between 1 and 6,991,908 there will
be a corresponding correlating effect on *my* odds for that game.
I think part of the reason it often doesn't sound quite right is
because of the 'size' of the odds. In such circumstances I think the
best thing to do is to look at an example that operates in exactly the
same way, but is easier to handle mentally.
So we could imagine that there is a lottery or game with 4 possible
outcomes. If I decide to play and choose 1 of those outcomes *my* odds
for that game are 1 in 4. If I 'buy more tickets', ie I decide to play
and choose 2 out of the possible 4 outcomes then I think it quickly
becomes evident that *my* odds for that game are now 1 in 2, my odds
must be 1 in 2 since I have covered 50% of the possible outcomes.
One reason why I think the above argument seems unreasonable at first
glance in the case of a 6/49 lottery is because of the large numbers.
If we follow the above example: I decide to play and purchase 1 ticket;
*my* odds for that game are 1 in 13,983,816. If, instead, I decided to
purchase two different tickets for that game then *my* odds are 2 in
13,983,816 which can be written as 1 in 6,991,908. It seems unjust
almost, to have purchased just 1 more ticket has slashed *my* odds for
the game in half...and the word 'half' is what causes the mental
quandry because it conjures up notions of 'half = 50%...50% = 1 in 2'
and we start to think, "That can't be right!"
That is why, by reducing the problem to a managable size (the imagining
of a lottery/game with 4 possible outcomes) we can see that it is, in
fact, correct. If it is correct for a game with only 4 possible
outcomes, then it must be correct for game with millions of possible
outcomes.
Anyway, I'll stop there, feel free to comment of course.
Ta
Nik
Robert Perkis
In a 6/49 game when you work with a group of 18 numbers
the odds of having all 6 winning numbers among your 18
drop to only 1 in 753. Now doesn't that seem like a
ridiculous change from 1 in 13.9 million to 1 in 753?
Robert Perkis
Keep on wheeling. ;-)
Nick UK
"IXL Software" wrote..
>
> Teach me something that I don't already know...
Here is something you obviously don't know. It also represents some good
advice for you..
*Never* accuse anyone of criminal intent unless you can produce absolute
*proof* that will back up your accusation. If you cannot produce the
evidence, then do the decent thing and withdraw it - unconditionally.
> I invite anyone to show proof that my line of reasoning is faulty for
> whatever reason. Keep it clean and try to
> stick to facts rather than personality.
I invite you to provide proof of your accusation. You lack reasoning. You
did not keep things clean. You soiled things with your dirty, filthy,
unfounded accusation.
> Would you rather read material of this kind or the kind of garbage that
> small minds produce when they actually have nothing at all to say that
> will benefit anyone other than their own perverse needs? In the end, you
> get the kind of group that you both make and deserve.
>
Eh? What was that? "the kind of group you both make and deserve"?
'er, do you mean the kind of group like this?..
> Shall I tell everyone the *true* story about your clumsy attempt to
> fraudulently obtain a software unlock code?
> Paul McCoy.
and this..
> Don't try to press this any further or I'll be forced to
> nail your arse to the wall.
> Paul McCoy.
and this..
> If you want to air dirty laundry in public, you can expect to be
> taken to the cleaners.
> Paul McCoy.
and this..
> If your aim is to turn this into a juvenile pissing contest, I guarantee
> that you will live to regret it.
and this..
> It's a pretty long stretch for me to stoop to your level, but I can manage
> it if necessary. Get out while you still can. One warning is all you get.
> Now slither back under your rock and stay there.
> Paul McCoy.
and this..
> Next time I need advice from an idiot, I'll be sure to call on you.
> Paul McCoy.
and this..
> Any further garbage like this from you will be treated with zero
> tolerance. No more warnings.
> Paul McCoy.
and this..
> Get out while you still can. One warning is all you get. Paul McCoy.
A little reminder..
"the kind of group you both make and deserve"?
POT-KETTLE-BLACK?
Rounding off with this heart-rending Oscar winning performance..
> Let me tell you now that I am some f***ing upset by what I have read.
> Seeing my name dragged through the mud and Christ-knows what kind of shit
> is unwarranted and absolutely intolerable.
> Paul McCoy.
You'd better get used to it and learn to tolerate it. What you are now
getting in this newsgroup (and will continue to get) is what you *deserve*.
It will not stop until you withdraw your false accusation - unconditionally!
Your stomach-churning arrogance knows no limits or bounds.
Nick.
Colin Fairbrother
You are not keeping abreast of developments. Colin has well and truly kicked
the bejesuz out of Odds/Evens and good old Sums.
If you claim to espouse logic then you should be able to follow my charts:
http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=143&PN=1
Run Filterologists
Run Filterologists
Run, Run, Run
Colin he will get you
One by one
You can't hide
It's time to tan your hide
Run Filterologists
Run Filterologists
Run
Colin
ps I thought the article you did on understanding Wheel jargon was pretty
good.
erce
> I believe that the correct way to interpret the odds is to say that
each
> ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*. In other words, if
you
> play
> 1,000 tickets, you have 1,000 *separate (but equal)* chances of 1 in
> 13,983,816 at the
> jackpot...not an aggregate chance of 1 in 13,983.816.
so if you buy 13983816 different tickets your chances are not 13983816
in 13983816 but you have 13983816 equal 1 in 13983816 chances of
winning
> If a player simply restricts their played lines to a sum between
100-199,
> this results in 12,169,389 lines that pass the filter. This results
in a
> nearly 13% reduction in eligible lines and consequently a nearly 15%
> improvement of the odds in the players' favour. Notice that this is
very
> much a clearly *positive* improvement over the concept of merely
purchasing
> more tickets as described above. Simple arithmetic shows that about
87% of
> all the possible lines are covered.
harry bets on all the horses in a race and you bet on the horses with
short odds
either of you millionnaires yet?
erce
erce
> "IXL Software" wrote..
> >
> > Teach me something that I don't already know...
>
> Here is something you obviously don't know. It also represents some
good
> advice for you..
>
> *Never* accuse anyone of criminal intent unless you can produce
absolute
> *proof* that will back up your accusation. If you cannot produce
the
> evidence, then do the decent thing and withdraw it - unconditionally.
>
if your confident your right stop spamming the newsgroup and sue the
guy
if your not confident stop spamming the newsgroup
erce
Paracelsus
"IXL Software" <ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Kx16e.15383$6k4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
|
| I believe that the correct way to interpret the odds is to say that each
| ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*.
<snip>
| We all enjoy a natural reduction of odds that is conditional on a simple
| assumption. The assumption is that the exact same 6 winning numbers will
not
| be randomly drawn within (or even beyond) the period of a human lifetime
at
| a rate of 2 draws per week. In practical terms, this means that you can
| subtract the number of actual results that have already been drawn from
the
| total of possible outcomes. In the case of the Canadian 649 lottery, there
| will have been 2,214 draw results by the time this is posted. Based on
that
| assumption, this means that the effective number of outcomes for draw
2,215
| will be 13,981,602. Not a *big* reduction by any means...but a reduction
| nonetheless for as long as the conditional assumption remains true. To my
| mind at least, there is little use in playing lines that have already been
| drawn.
First you say each combination has an equal chance of being drawn, then you
say the chances of a previous combination being drawn again is practically
zero. What's wrong with this picture?
It looks like a little thought is conspicuously more absent in some parts
than in others.
| Teach me something that I don't already know...I beg of
| you.
That's what they all say.
Stig Holmquist
Your discussion of the sum of six drawn numbers is of particular
interest to me.
In his book "Lottery Numbers, Past, Present and Future" H. Schneider
also examined the sum and recommended the range 82-243 based on only
50 draws from each of two past 6/49 games. He clearly did not
recognize that the range should be symmetrical around the mean 150
in the long run.
Eight years ago I wrote an article in "Lotto World" (Apr.'97) on
p.40-43 about how to predict the std.dev. for the sum in any lotto
game and outlined ranges for 40-80% certainty. The std.dev. for the
6/49 game will be 32.8 and the std. normal table can be used to
select any desired range, since the data form a nearly perfect
Gaussian curve.
How many sums did you find outside the 100-199 range and were any
outside 82-243?
There is a second statistic abou the sums that has long intrigued me.
Each sum of six has a mean with its own std.dev. There seems to be
no known formula for predicting the mean std.dev. for each sumof any
lotto, but its value is likely to be around 13.5 for 6/49 with a range
from 6 to 21 based on data from Schneider.
If you have all 6/49 data on a spreadsheet perhaps you could also
calculate the std.dev. for the sum of each set of six and tell us
their mean, range and variance. Such data can then be used as an
additional filter. The smallest value will be 1.87 for the set
1-2-3-4-5-6 and all sets with six consequtive numbers, of which there
must be 43 sets, while the largest will be 25.21 for 1-2-3-47-48-49 of
wich there is only one set, and thus the distribution is not normal,
but close.
Note that the set 1-2-3-47-48-49 has a sum of 150 but the most extreme
std.dev. and the sets 22-23-24-25-26-27 and 23-24-25-26-27-28 have
sums clost to 150,( 147 and 153 resp), but the lowest std.dev. Thus
sum is not a sufficient filter, but needs to be supplemented with s.d.
Stig Holmquist
Dick Adams
[Snipped since everyone has already read it]
If I understood you correctly, you are saying that buying more tickets
does not improve your odds of winning as well as buying more tickets
within the range of sums.
If that is correct, then what your position amounts to is "Buy more
tickets based on filters". I can not imagine disagreeing with that.
Dick - Still The Wizard of Odds and sometimes Taxes too
Nick UK
"erce" wote something that sounded like..
>
> if your confident your right stop spamming the newsgroup and sue the
> guy
>
> if your not confident stop spamming the newsgroup
>
> erce
>
Neither of your two sentences (above) make grammatical sense. However, if I
put in the required commas and full stops, I think what you are trying to
say is this..
<If you're confident you are right, then stop spamming the newsgroup and sue
the guy.>
<If you're not confident, then stop spamming the newsgroup.>
If indeed that is what you are trying to say, then I suggest you..
(1) Explain 'confident' and in what context are you using the word?
(2) Before you accuse me of 'spamming' this ng, look up the word 'spam' and
learn what it is.
(3) Take a short course in elementary English before attempting to subscribe
to any newsgroup.
Nick.
John Griffin
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:00:40 -0400, "IXL Software"
> <ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>>
I'm gonna buy a "Quinto" ticket. What's the sum of 2 of clubs, 5
of clubs, 8 of diamonds, jack of hearts and king of hearts?
Wait...never mind...the sums idea is grossly silly. They draw
balls, not numbers.
IXL Software
news:115ic88...@corp.supernews.com...
Oh! Is that what I said? Well I'll be dadburned.
Paul
IXL Software
news:1113120544.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> IXL Software wrote:
>> It has often been said here and elsewhere that the only way to
> improve or
>> reduce the odds against a player winning a lottery jackpot is to
> purchase
>> more tickets (chances). Is that really so?
<SNIP - see original>
> Paul
>
> The only problem I can see with your question/analysis/ponderings
> above, is the way you end it:
>
> "...or the kind of garbage small minds produce..."
>
> There were a zillion different ways to end that post and even make a
> similar point, at the end that is, but you chose one of arrogance, of
> talking down to the rest.
>
> So while I find your post interesting in many aspects, it's
> disappointing to have to start mine with the above critique.
>
Given the kind and the volume of relentless personal attacks directed my way
for the past several months, I'd say that my remark demonstrates remarkable
personal restraint on my part. Why take offense if it doesn't apply to you?
> Anyway having said that I'll continue.
>
> I don't think there's any argument that there are 13,983,816 possible
> outcomes before each and every draw takes place.
>
> Your chance of matching that outcome are written variously as:
>
> 1 in 13,983,816
> 13,983,816:1
> 13,983,816/1
>
> Assuming that only one draw takes place each time, the '1' in the above
> notations refers to the assumption that you have purchased 1 ticket for
> that draw. That's why the odds are 'to 1'
>
No. It represents the odds of any 1 ticket matching the 6 jackpot numbers.
It has nothing to do with how many tickets the player has actually
purchased.
> Your point is one I have also struggled with, and in the same manner,
> in that it doesn't seem quite right, there's something that just keeps
> niggling me about it.
>
> However, I believe that the numbers don't lie. Let's suppose I increase
> my tickets to 2.
>
> *My* odds for that draw are now 2 in 13,983,816. Is this not the same
> as me buying 1 ticket in a different lottery somewhere that only has
> 6,991,908 possible outcomes?
>
That's the whole point I'm attempting to make. It's *not necessarily* the
same.
> Another way I found to justify to myself that despite that niggling
> feeling, the more tickets answer is correct, is this:
>
> If in a 6/49 lotto I were to purchase 6,991,908 tickets (each with a
> different combination) I would have purchased 50% of the possible
> outcomes. *My* odds for the ensuing draw would be now 6,991,908 in
> 13,983,816 or 1 in 2. If I have 50% of the possible outcomes then that
> is the same as 'purchasing heads' where the possible outcomes are
> either 'heads' or 'tails'.
>
Oh puhleezz...not the coins again. Sorry but I long ago developed almost
zero tolerance for that tired analogy. Movin' on...
> So my conclusion to the above would be this. If it is true that when I
> buy just 1 ticket my odds for the game are 1 in 13,983,816 AND if it is
> also true that if I were to buy 6,991,908 tickets then my odds for the
> game are 1 in 2, then it must be true that in all circumstances where I
> were to purchase a number of tickets between 1 and 6,991,908 there will
> be a corresponding correlating effect on *my* odds for that game.
>
> I think part of the reason it often doesn't sound quite right is
> because of the 'size' of the odds. In such circumstances I think the
> best thing to do is to look at an example that operates in exactly the
> same way, but is easier to handle mentally.
>
> So we could imagine that there is a lottery or game with 4 possible
> outcomes. If I decide to play and choose 1 of those outcomes *my* odds
> for that game are 1 in 4. If I 'buy more tickets', ie I decide to play
> and choose 2 out of the possible 4 outcomes then I think it quickly
> becomes evident that *my* odds for that game are now 1 in 2, my odds
> must be 1 in 2 since I have covered 50% of the possible outcomes.
>
I'm not necessarily trying to prove myself right by disproving the above
analogy. It makes perfect sense to anyone that has been trained to see
things that way over an entire lifetime. I *am* trying to point out that
there is an alternate viewpoint that is just as valid. From that view, I
would say that what you have is 2 separate chances with equal odds of 1 in
4. Simple as that. There is no need for any participant to "win" the
argument one way or the other in order to establish some kind of imagined
superiority.
I can liken a discussion on this topic to a discussion on the physical
properties of light. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Proof has long been
shown that both cases are equally valid.
> One reason why I think the above argument seems unreasonable at first
> glance in the case of a 6/49 lottery is because of the large numbers.
> If we follow the above example: I decide to play and purchase 1 ticket;
> *my* odds for that game are 1 in 13,983,816. If, instead, I decided to
> purchase two different tickets for that game then *my* odds are 2 in
> 13,983,816 which can be written as 1 in 6,991,908. It seems unjust
> almost, to have purchased just 1 more ticket has slashed *my* odds for
> the game in half...and the word 'half' is what causes the mental
> quandry because it conjures up notions of 'half = 50%...50% = 1 in 2'
> and we start to think, "That can't be right!"
>
> That is why, by reducing the problem to a managable size (the imagining
> of a lottery/game with 4 possible outcomes) we can see that it is, in
> fact, correct. If it is correct for a game with only 4 possible
> outcomes, then it must be correct for game with millions of possible
> outcomes.
>
> Anyway, I'll stop there, feel free to comment of course.
>
> Ta
> Nik
>
This kind of thing is difficult to discuss through a medium such as this. So
many things can be easily misunderstood...as evidenced by some of the other
replies I see here. My intent was to stimulate a healthy dialog on one
aspect of lottery theory. In this case, it appears to have done so...with
mixed results. Thanks for your input.
Regards,
Paul
IXL Software
news:ik7i519j9rg9q52me...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:00:40 -0400, "IXL Software"
> <ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>It has often been said here and elsewhere that the only way to improve or
>>reduce the odds against a player winning a lottery jackpot is to purchase
>>more tickets (chances). Is that really so?
<SNIP - see original>
I'm not entirely sure that I understand it, but thanks for your input.
Paul
IXL Software
news:4259...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Mr IXL
>
> You are not keeping abreast of developments. Colin has well and truly
> kicked
> the bejesuz out of Odds/Evens and good old Sums.
>
> If you claim to espouse logic then you should be able to follow my charts:
> http://www.lottoposter.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=143&PN=1
>
> Run Filterologists
> Run Filterologists
> Run, Run, Run
> Colin he will get you
> One by one
> You can't hide
> It's time to tan your hide
> Run Filterologists
> Run Filterologists
> Run
>
> Colin
Huh!...and I'm the one that gets accused of arrogance. Sorry bud. I fail to
see what your chart proves about anything at all. The point is...?
>
> ps I thought the article you did on understanding Wheel jargon was pretty
> good.
>
Thank you.
Paul
John Griffin
> It has often been said here and elsewhere that the only way to
> improve or reduce the odds against a player winning a lottery
> jackpot is to purchase more tickets (chances). Is that really
> so?
Yes, it has often been said, and yes, it's clearly so.
>
> The reasoning goes something like this:
>
> If I buy 1 ticket on a 649 lottery draw, that ticket has odds
> of 13,983,816:1 of matching the jackpot numbers.
Against.
> If I buy 10 tickets for the very same draw, my overall odds
> now become 1,398,381.6:1. If I buy 1000 tickets for the very
> same draw, my overall odds now become 13,983.816:1...and so
> on.
>
> This logic is essentially saying that I can have a 1,000%
> improvement of the odds in my favour by covering only a very
> tiny percentage (0.00715%) of the possible outcomes. Don't
> those numbers look just a little out of whack...in fact
> extremely disproportionate?
Yes--1000 times is 100000%. Other than that, no.
> Consider this: it is entirely possible to purchase 13,983,815
> different tickets and *still* not win the jackpot! You will of
> course have a hell of a lot of smaller prizes...but not the
> big one. Imagine the embarrassment.
You could write a book and do the talk show circuit.
> Assuming that the minimum match of winning numbers must be at
> least 3, it is theoretically possible to purchase 13,723,192
> tickets and not win so much as a goddamn
> penny! Incredible as it may seem, that's over 98% coverage of
> all possible outcomes with nothing to show for it. I have no
> idea of how one could go about purposely trying to win nothing
> on such a large wager. In this case, losing everything seems
> more daunting a task than winning anything. Strange game...is
> it not?
No. That one possible outcome might seem "strange" and make a
good conversation piece, but its probability is well defined.
> Do we begin to see how this "more tickets" logic breaks down
> pretty rapidly?
If you "see" that, don't ever play the lottery.
>This is why I believe that the common basic
> assumption is incorrect. You simply
> cannot use the aggregate total of chances to properly
> calculate the overall odds. You end up with a distorted
> picture that is out of phase with reality.
No. There are 13983816 possible outcomes (ignoring
permutations). If you have one ticket, there is exactly one good
outcome. If you have N, there are exactly N good ones. There is
no mystery.
> I believe that the correct way to interpret the odds is to say
> that each ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*. In
> other words, if you play
> 1,000 tickets, you have 1,000 *separate (but equal)* chances
> of 1 in 13,983,816 at the
> jackpot...
True.
> not an aggregate chance of 1 in 13,983.816.
Yes - it's an aggregate chance of 1000 in 13983816.
> The difference in interpretations is subtle and difficult to
> adequately describe but I'm hoping that at least a few people
> out there can understand what I'm driving at. The implications
> of one being true over the other are huge...if given but a
> little thought...something that is generally conspicuous by
> its absence around these parts.
Irony.
The difference is very simple to describe: None.
> Note that using an analogy such as a mixture of red and blue
> marbles in a jar would be inappropriate for the purpose of
> counter-argument. That would be like comparing the
> probabilities or odds between 2 similar but very different
> card games such as Poker and Bridge...even though they both
> use the exact same deck of 52 cards...or Chess and
> Checkers...even though they both use the exact same playing
> board and number of playing pieces.
There is no need for any analogy, because it's too simple. N
mutually exclusive 1/x probabilities add up to N/x. Every
freakin' time, euphemistically speaking.
> TRUE REDUCTION OF ODDS
Uhoh...
> ========================
>
> The only way to truly reduce the player's odds is to reduce
> the number of possible outcomes.
The only way to reduce the number of possible outcomes is to play
a different game.
>The only way to accomplish
> this is by artificial means that are commonly called
> "guessing". That's why it's called a game of chance...or
> gambling on an unknown outcome.
You were talking reality before, but now you've switched to
fantasy. Your guess does absolutely nothing to the machine or
its balls.
> Does such a thing exist? The answer is conditionally Yes. Here
> are a few examples:
>
> We all enjoy a natural reduction of odds that is conditional
> on a simple assumption. The assumption is that the exact same
> 6 winning numbers will not be randomly drawn within (or even
> beyond) the period of a human lifetime at a rate of 2 draws
> per week. In practical terms, this means that you can subtract
> the number of actual results that have already been drawn from
> the total of possible outcomes.
That was funny. I hope you were trying for comic relief. You
could add some amusement by trying to describe some magic which
transfers probability from one event to the others.
>In the case of the Canadian
> 649 lottery, there will have been 2,214 draw results by the
> time this is posted. Based on that assumption, this means
> that the effective number of outcomes for draw 2,215 will be
> 13,981,602. Not a *big* reduction by any means...but a
> reduction nonetheless for as long as the conditional
> assumption remains true. To my mind at least, there is little
> use in playing lines that have already been drawn.
True...exactly the same little use as playing any other. However,
if you play all 2214 of those past draws, your chance of hitting
the jackpot is precisely 2214/13983816--the same as you have with
any other 2214 lines.
> Another example is the application of certain criteria that
> will either accept or reject any combination of 6 numbers for
> consideration as worthy lines to play. These criteria are most
> often referred to as "filters".
"Filters" are for the hobbyist. The lottery gadget does not use
them in selecting numbers. They're worthless except for their
entertainment value, which is admittedly considerable to lots of
people.
> One of the most basic filters is the *sum of the line*. This
> sum ranges from a minimum of 21 to a maximum of 279. Once the
> number of combinations for each of those sums is calculated,
> it is easy to plot the results on a graph. The resulting graph
> represents the classic "bell" curve that is the classic
> statistician's bread & butter. In the case of a 649 lottery,
> the sums peak at 150 with 165,772 lines that sum to that
> total. The remaining sums fall off equally and perfectly
> symmetrically on either side of that sum. This is not mere
> coincidence. I have seen many subscribers here reject this
> fact as either useless or meaningless. They are entitled to
> that opinion, but I have never seen even *1* of those
> proponents offer any clear evidence or mathematical proof to
> support their belief. In stark contrast to that glaring
> deficiency, I submit the following evidence in support of my
> claim:
Here's the bare essential and irrefutable fact about the sums: If
you want to use one, you have to buy all of its combinations. The
fantasy in the minds of proponents of the sums foolishness is
that the sum is "the thing," and it attracts the draw
proportionally to its number of combinations. "Silly" is the
best word for any belief that a line adding to 150 is somehow
"better" than 44-45-46-47-48-49 or 1-2-3-4-5-6.
> If a player simply restricts their played lines to a sum
> between 100-199, this results in 12,169,389 lines that pass
> the filter. This results in a nearly 13% reduction in eligible
> lines and consequently a nearly 15% improvement of the odds in
> the players' favour.
Bullshit. You can filter all the hell you want, but the machine
will even more mindlessly do its thing without regard to any of
that stuff.
> Notice that this is very much a clearly
> *positive* improvement over the concept of merely purchasing
> more tickets as described above.
In your dreams.
>Simple arithmetic shows that
> about 87% of all the possible lines are covered.
>
> Practical "real" results show that in the Canadian 649, 1,919
> of 2,213 draws to date (86.71%) have had a sum that conforms
> to this requirement. In fact, the last 18 consecutive draws
> have produced results that conform to this requirement. For
> the UK649, 842 of 969 draws to date (86.89%) have obeyed this
> simple requirement. Up until the most recent draw, 26 previous
> consecutive draws fell within the requirement. Would anyone
> care to reject a 15% improvement of odds for somewhere between
> 8 or 9 out of every 10 draws? If so...why? Kindly describe
> your reasoning with the same detail that I have attempted
> here. The possibility always exists that I am totally
> mistaken. I'll be the 1st to accept that possibility and will
> gladly acknowledge any contrary opinion. Teach me something
> that I don't already know...I beg of you. This place offers so
> little intellectual stimulation other than the easily
> predictable and inevitable ego conflicts that prevail here.
The sums of the results will fit that normal curve you mentioned.
That information is of no value, since it has nothing to do with
any individual result.
> I have further examples to offer, but I'll see what the
> reaction is before saying anything further. Is it wrong to
> identify such a strong correlation between the theoretical and
> the actual? I invite anyone to show proof that my line of
> reasoning is faulty for whatever reason. Keep it clean and try
> to stick to facts rather than personality.
>
> Would you rather read material of this kind or the kind of
> garbage that small minds produce when they actually have
> nothing at all to say that will benefit anyone other than
> their own perverse needs? In the end, you get the kind of
> group that you both make and deserve.
That was pretty funny. "Keep it objective and impersonal, you
assholes." Okay, it pains me, but I'll try to be polite: You
aren't goofy--only your delusions are.
Suppose 13983816 people have applied all the "filters," chosen
their sets of "likely" numbers and eliminated their ideas of
"unlikely" numbers or whatever and have all thereby "reduced
their odds" and no two have chosen the same six numbers. The
probability that one of them will win is greater than 1.00,
according to the "reduced your odds" misconceptions.
IXL Software
news:Vwc6e.18099$S9....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
Get your vile fucking poison out of here now you miserable asshole. No one
is interested in the useless shit that you purposely defile this group with.
John Griffin
> IXL Software wrote:
>>...
>
> In a 6/49 game when you work with a group of 18 numbers
> the odds of having all 6 winning numbers among your 18
> drop to only 1 in 753. Now doesn't that seem like a
> ridiculous change from 1 in 13.9 million to 1 in 753?
Damn, it sure does! So, you take 1-18, I take 19-36, and Gerry
gets the remaining 13. We can team up and then take the money and
run away to Rio before they figure out how we did it. That would
have worked if you hadn't given it away. Now on high alert, the
lottery commision will probably insist on using its own set of
18--some of yours and some of mine, but none of Gerry's.
>
> Robert Perkis
> Keep on wheeling. ;-)
Yes!
Gerry
"Nick UK" <lotto...@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Vwc6e.18099$S9....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
Phht..
Gerry
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9634660AA83E5th...@130.133.1.4...
whys everbody always pickin' on me :-(
Stig Holmquist
<ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
You did not answer my question about how many numbers were outside
of the 82-243 range nor what was the range for each of the two 6/49
games you have studied.
Also, what is it you do not understand about the std.dev. for the set
1-2-3-4-5-6 being 1.87 from its mean 3.5? I was hoping you would use
your file to determine the mean s.d. for each 6/49 game.
Feel free to respond to my e-mail: stigf...@hotmail.com
Stig Holmquist>
>
Jack Ricci
"Nik Barker" <nicholas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113120544.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> *My* odds for that draw are now 2 in 13,983,816. Is this not the same
> as me buying 1 ticket in a different lottery somewhere that only has
> 6,991,908 possible outcomes?
I disagree, Nik. The 2 tickets you bought for the one 6/49 game still
have to compete with the whole, entire13,983,816 possible outcomes to hit
the one jackpot, therefore the second ticket is not competing with just only
6,991,908 outcomes for that same one jackpot! You are only holding 2 of the
entire 13,983,816 possible outcomes in your hand, and not just 1 outcome of
6,991,908. Your first ticket will be one hopeful scenario of the total
13,983,816 possibilities, and your second ticket will be one of the
remaining 13,983,815 possibilities, and a third will be one of the remaining
13,983,814 possibilities available in that game, etc. I do not view a second
ticket as cutting your odds in half, as some lottery commissions claim.
> One reason why I think the above argument seems unreasonable at first
> glance in the case of a 6/49 lottery is because of the large numbers.
> If we follow the above example: I decide to play and purchase 1 ticket;
> *my* odds for that game are 1 in 13,983,816. If, instead, I decided to
> purchase two different tickets for that game then *my* odds are 2 in
> 13,983,816 which can be written as 1 in 6,991,908. It seems unjust
> almost, to have purchased just 1 more ticket has slashed *my* odds for
> the game in half...and the word 'half' is what causes the mental
> quandry because it conjures up notions of 'half = 50%...50% = 1 in 2'
> and we start to think, "That can't be right!"
>
> That is why, by reducing the problem to a managable size (the imagining
> of a lottery/game with 4 possible outcomes) we can see that it is, in
> fact, correct. If it is correct for a game with only 4 possible
> outcomes, then it must be correct for game with millions of possible
> outcomes.
No possible way, Nik! In lotto, odds of 2 in 13,983,816 CANNOT be
re-written as odds of 1 in 6,991,908 ...even though it almost makes sense in
theoretic mathematical terms, but not in reality!
In your 4-outcome scenario, you can actually play 1/4 of the whole game
with one ticket, 2/4 of the whole game with two tickets, 3/4 of the whole
game with three tickets, and 4/4 of the whole game with 4 tickets, and it is
conceivable that you will actually hit the jackpot with the few tickets that
represent 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4 of the entire possible outcomes.
In the 6/49 game with the 13,983,816 scenario, you can play 1/13,983,816
of the whole game with one ticket, and 2/13,983,816 of the whole game with 2
tickets, and 3/13,983,816 of the whole game with three tickets and
4/13,983,816 of the whole game with four tickets, and you will probably not
see the jackpot anywhere in sight!
Your 2 in 4 thinking or rationalizing, does not equal 2 in 13,983,816 in
the same sense that you are pointing out...and it cannot be reduced to mean
1 in 6,991,908 either in this case!
> Consider this: it is entirely possible to purchase 13,983,815
different
> tickets and *still* not win the jackpot! You will of course have a
hell of a
> lot of smaller prizes...but not the big one. Imagine the
embarrassment.
I very much agree with the above comments and rationalization of the
entire topic at hand, well-written by the author whose post you responded
to, Nik...and I also very much agree with the accurate address you
emphasized at the very start of your response to the author... It was
perfect...
LottoHackJack
Jack Ricci
"Nik Barker" <nicholas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113120544.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> *My* odds for that draw are now 2 in 13,983,816. Is this not the same
> as me buying 1 ticket in a different lottery somewhere that only has
> 6,991,908 possible outcomes?
I disagree, Nik. The 2 tickets you bought for the one 6/49 game still
have to compete with the whole, entire13,983,816 possible outcomes to hit
the one jackpot, therefore the second ticket is not competing with just only
6,991,908 outcomes for that same one jackpot! You are only holding 2 of the
entire 13,983,816 possible outcomes in your hand, and not just 1 outcome of
6,991,908. Your first ticket will be one hopeful scenario of the total
13,983,816 possibilities, and your second ticket will be one of the
remaining 13,983,815 possibilities, and a third will be one of the remaining
13,983,814 possibilities available in that game, etc. I do not view a second
ticket as cutting your odds in half, as some lottery commissions claim.
> One reason why I think the above argument seems unreasonable at first
> glance in the case of a 6/49 lottery is because of the large numbers.
> If we follow the above example: I decide to play and purchase 1 ticket;
> *my* odds for that game are 1 in 13,983,816. If, instead, I decided to
> purchase two different tickets for that game then *my* odds are 2 in
> 13,983,816 which can be written as 1 in 6,991,908. It seems unjust
> almost, to have purchased just 1 more ticket has slashed *my* odds for
> the game in half...and the word 'half' is what causes the mental
> quandry because it conjures up notions of 'half = 50%...50% = 1 in 2'
> and we start to think, "That can't be right!"
>
> That is why, by reducing the problem to a managable size (the imagining
> of a lottery/game with 4 possible outcomes) we can see that it is, in
> fact, correct. If it is correct for a game with only 4 possible
> outcomes, then it must be correct for game with millions of possible
> outcomes.
No possible way, Nik! In lotto, odds of 2 in 13,983,816 CANNOT be
re-written as odds of 1 in 6,991,908 ...even though it almost makes sense in
theoretic mathematical terms, but not in reality!
In your 4-outcome scenario, you can actually play 1/4 of the whole game
with one ticket, 2/4 of the whole game with two tickets, 3/4 of the whole
game with three tickets, and 4/4 of the whole game with 4 tickets, and it is
conceivable that you will actually hit the jackpot with the few tickets that
represent 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4 of the entire possible outcomes.
In the 6/49 game with the 13,983,816 scenario, you can play 1/13,983,816
of the whole game with one ticket, and 2/13,983,816 of the whole game with 2
tickets, and 3/13,983,816 of the whole game with three tickets and
4/13,983,816 of the whole game with four tickets, and you will probably not
see the jackpot anywhere in sight!
Your 2 in 4 thinking or rationalizing, does not equal 2 in 13,983,816 in
the same sense that you are pointing out...and it cannot be reduced to mean
1 in 6,991,908 either in this case!
> Consider this: it is entirely possible to purchase 13,983,815
different
> tickets and *still* not win the jackpot! You will of course have a
hell of a
> lot of smaller prizes...but not the big one. Imagine the
embarrassment.
I very much agree with the above comments and rationalization of the
Nick UK
"IXL Software" wrote something that sounded like..
>
> Get your vile fucking poison out of here now you miserable asshole. No one
> is interested in the useless shit that you purposely defile this group
> with.
>
Tut tut Paul: you gotta be a bit more careful with your blood pressure, you
don't wanna blow a gasket now, do you?
You may indeed be correct in your assumption that no one is interested in
what has been going on here recently. But that matters not.
What does matter is the fact that I am certainly interested and that will
remain your problem. And be assured: my position will not change until you
withdraw the "vile" "poisonous" and false accusation that you (among other
things) have defiled me and this ng with..
> Shall I tell everyone the *true* story about your clumsy attempt to
> fraudulently obtain a software unlock code?
> Paul McCoy.
Together with this threat...
> Don't try to press this any further or I'll be forced to
> nail your arse to the wall.
> Paul McCoy.
Withdraw the accusation now. No conditions, no excuses, just withdraw it.
Nick.
Nick UK
"Gerry" wrote..
> Paul,
> do you ever get bored with little rat bastard terriers nipping
> away at your ankles?
Wrong breed of dog Gerry and wrong part of McCoy's anatomy. McCoy now has
his *balls* firmly locked in the jaws of a British bulldog. Very tenacious
breed of animal too. Once they have a good tight grip of some unfortunate
bastard's nuts, they *don't* let go!
http://ghsweb.k12.ar.us/bulldog/bdscrub.JPG
Gerry
"Jack Ricci" <ri...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:d3bqk...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Comments embedded within.
>
> "Nik Barker" <nicholas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113120544.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > *My* odds for that draw are now 2 in 13,983,816. Is this not the same
> > as me buying 1 ticket in a different lottery somewhere that only has
> > 6,991,908 possible outcomes?
>
> I disagree, Nik. The 2 tickets you bought for the one 6/49 game still
> have to compete with the whole, entire13,983,816 possible outcomes to hit
> the one jackpot, therefore the second ticket is not competing with just
only
> 6,991,908 outcomes for that same one jackpot! You are only holding 2 of
the
> entire 13,983,816 possible outcomes in your hand, and not just 1 outcome
of
> 6,991,908. Your first ticket will be one hopeful scenario of the total
> 13,983,816 possibilities, and your second ticket will be one of the
> remaining 13,983,815 possibilities, and a third will be one of the
remaining
> 13,983,814 possibilities available in that game, etc. I do not view a
second
> ticket as cutting your odds in half, as some lottery commissions claim.
If I was this stupid I wouldn't let anybody know.
Gerry
>
> "Gerry" wrote..
>
> > Paul,
> > do you ever get bored with little rat bastard terriers nipping
> > away at your ankles?
>
> Wrong breed of dog Gerry and wrong part of McCoy's anatomy. McCoy now has
> his *balls* firmly locked in the jaws of a British bulldog. Very
tenacious
> breed of animal too. Once they have a good tight grip of some unfortunate
> bastard's nuts, they *don't* let go!
If I had someone's balls in my mouth I wouldn't tell anybody. I suppose you
can call yourself any kind of dawg you want. You're just a dumbass bitch
that
goes around polluting threads and shitting on lawns.
You're too F***ING stoopid to join in a lottery discussion.
Rant(bark) on bitch !!
erce
> Your chance of matching that outcome are written variously as:
>
> 1 in 13,983,816
> 13,983,816:1
> 13,983,816/1
13,983,815/1
erce
Nick UK
"Gerry" wrote something that sounded like..
> Paul,
> do you ever get bored with little rat bastard terriers nipping
> away at your ankles?
Wrong breed of dog Gerry and wrong part of McCoy's anatomy.
McCoy now has his *balls* firmly locked in the jaws of a
British bulldog. Very tenacious breed of animal too. Once they
have a good tight grip of some unfortunate bastard's nuts,
they *don't* let go!
http://ghsweb.k12.ar.us/bulldog/BDCHAIN.JPG
Gerry
Looks like he's morphed into a Usenet SpamBot. Spam us again bitch !!
Hope I used good nuff english..
Gerry
"erce" <ericri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113139857.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Nick UK wrote:
> > "IXL Software" wrote..
> > >
> > > Teach me something that I don't already know...
> >
> > Here is something you obviously don't know. It also represents some
> good
> > advice for you..
> >
> > *Never* accuse anyone of criminal intent unless you can produce
> absolute
> > *proof* that will back up your accusation. If you cannot produce
> the
> > evidence, then do the decent thing and withdraw it - unconditionally.
> >
>
> if your confident your right stop spamming the newsgroup and sue the
> guy
He's in no position to sue anybody. He's just throwing shit up against the
wall
and hoping some of it sticks. Mostly it just stinks like bulldog shit ;-)
Colin Fairbrother
If you can't understand that the incidence if occurrence for each Sum
grouping is pretty well identical then there is no point in me trying to
communicate with you.
I should have known this from your naive understanding of probability and
reduction.
I don't try to argue with a stupid person - it's stupid - and you express
youself well enough but in a stupid way.
In conclusion I would kike to be more erudite and say - Get Fucked - either
way will do you good as you are so up yourself that you may disgigure your
tongue..
Colin
Nick UK
"Gerry" wrote something that sounded like..
> Paul,
> do you ever get bored with little rat bastard terriers nipping
> away at your ankles?
>
Wrong breed of dog Gerry and wrong part of McCoy's anatomy.
McCoy now has his *balls* firmly locked in the jaws of a
British bulldog. Very tenacious breed of animal too. Once they
have a good tight grip of some unfortunate bastard's nuts,
they *don't* let go!
http://ghsweb.k12.ar.us/bulldog/bdsnarl.JPG
erce
IXL Software
Case closed.
The rest of this lame attempt to ridicule me as some kind of a
newbie fool is totally unnecessary. File it in your deepest body cavity. I
need your confrontational disposition about as much as a cow needs bigger
tits.
IXL Software
Sum range of 82-243:
TOTAL LINES GENERATED - 13,727,235
256,581 Lines Filtered From Full Wheel (1.83%)
The same is true for any 649.
For anyone who has never seen them, here are the line totals for each of the
sums between 21-279:
Sum Lines
21 1
22 1
23 2
24 3
25 5
26 7
27 11
28 14
29 20
30 26
31 35
32 44
33 58
34 71
35 90
36 110
37 136
38 163
39 199
40 235
41 282
42 331
43 391
44 454
45 532
46 612
47 709
48 811
49 931
50 1057
51 1206
52 1360
53 1540
54 1729
55 1945
56 2172
57 2432
58 2702
59 3009
60 3331
61 3692
62 4070
63 4494
64 4935
65 5426
66 5940
67 6506
68 7097
69 7748
70 8423
71 9163
72 9933
73 10769
74 11637
75 12579
76 13552
77 14603
78 15690
79 16856
80 18059
81 19349
82 20673
83 22087
84 23540
85 25082
86 26663
87 28340
88 30051
89 31860
90 33706
91 35648
92 37625
93 39703
94 41809
95 44016
96 46253
97 48586
98 50944
99 53402
100 55875
101 58446
102 61031
103 63706
104 66388
105 69161
106 71928
107 74781
108 77624
109 80542
110 83440
111 86412
112 89348
113 92350
114 95311
115 98324
116 101285
117 104295
118 107235
119 110215
120 113119
121 116048
122 118889
123 121751
124 124507
125 127274
126 129930
127 132581
128 135109
129 137629
130 140008
131 142370
132 144587
133 146771
134 148800
135 150794
136 152617
137 154397
138 156004
139 157554
140 158923
141 160236
142 161354
143 162410
144 163273
145 164062
146 164654
147 165176
148 165490
149 165732
150 165772
151 165732
152 165490
153 165176
154 164654
155 164062
156 163273
157 162410
158 161354
159 160236
160 158923
161 157554
162 156004
163 154397
164 152617
165 150794
166 148800
167 146771
168 144587
169 142370
170 140008
171 137629
172 135109
173 132581
174 129930
175 127274
176 124507
177 121751
178 118889
179 116048
180 113119
181 110215
182 107235
183 104295
184 101285
185 98324
186 95311
187 92350
188 89348
189 86412
190 83440
191 80542
192 77624
193 74781
194 71928
195 69161
196 66388
197 63706
198 61031
199 58446
200 55875
201 53402
202 50944
203 48586
204 46253
205 44016
206 41809
207 39703
208 37625
209 35648
210 33706
211 31860
212 30051
213 28340
214 26663
215 25082
216 23540
217 22087
218 20673
219 19349
220 18059
221 16856
222 15690
223 14603
224 13552
225 12579
226 11637
227 10769
228 9933
229 9163
230 8423
231 7748
232 7097
233 6506
234 5940
235 5426
236 4935
237 4494
238 4070
239 3692
240 3331
241 3009
242 2702
243 2432
244 2172
245 1945
246 1729
247 1540
248 1360
249 1206
250 1057
251 931
252 811
253 709
254 612
255 532
256 454
257 391
258 331
259 282
260 235
261 199
262 163
263 136
264 110
265 90
266 71
267 58
268 44
269 35
270 26
271 20
272 14
273 11
274 7
275 5
276 3
277 2
278 1
279 1
IXL Software
That's a great attitude you have there Colin. You should go far. The farther
away from me the better.
Robert Perkis
IXL Software wrote:
>
> "Nick UK" <lotto...@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Vwc6e.18099$S9....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "erce" wote something that sounded like..
> >>
> >> if your confident your right stop spamming the newsgroup and sue the
> >> guy
> >>
> >> if your not confident stop spamming the newsgroup
> >>
> >> erce
> >>
> >
> > Neither of your two sentences (above) make grammatical sense. However, if
> > I put in the required commas and full stops, I think what you are trying
> > to say is this..
> >
> > <If you're confident you are right, then stop spamming the newsgroup and
> > sue the guy.>
> >
> > <If you're not confident, then stop spamming the newsgroup.>
> >
> > If indeed that is what you are trying to say, then I suggest you..
> >
> > (1) Explain 'confident' and in what context are you using the word?
> > (2) Before you accuse me of 'spamming' this ng, look up the word 'spam'
> > and learn what it is.
> > (3) Take a short course in elementary English before attempting to
> > subscribe to any newsgroup.
> >
> > Nick.
>
> Get your vile f**king poison out of here now you miserable asshole. No one
> is interested in the useless shit that you purposely defile this group with.
People please don't use the correct spelling of the "F" word
we are trying to keep the group within the family friendly
parameters.
Robert Perkis / r.g.l.faq
IXL Software
> "IXL Software" <ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
> to scare you into snipping it, but thanks for the laughs.
>
>> The rest of this lame attempt to ridicule me as some kind of a
>> newbie fool is totally unnecessary. File it in your deepest
>> body cavity. I need your confrontational disposition about as
>> much as a cow needs bigger tits.
>
>
> Find a better way of saying you didn't understand most of what I
> said and you can't argue with the little you did, i.e., a way
> that doesn't make you look like some umbrageous little kid. You
> may not be a "newbie fool," but you're the equivalent--the only
> difference being a little more "time in grade."
>
> I said you aren't goofy but your ideas sure as hell are. That
> certainly isn't ridicule, but apparently I said it a little too
> hastily. You have no idea what you're talking about--speaking of
> "case closed."
>
> Buying more tickets will give you as many more chances to win the
> jackpot. Nothing else, including the superstitions you mentioned
> and any you left out, will increase your chances of winning. The
> playslip I've been using since the inaptly named "mega millions"
> started, any five "quick picks," and any five lines you can
> choose by applying all the "filters" you mentioned and all the
> "filters" you didn't mention all have precisely the same
> probability of winning. You may either try to refute that
> statement; or print this on heavy paper, roll it into a tube and
> use it as a suppository; or cry your eyes out, but you can't
> change the facts.
>
> Just play wheels--help build the jackpot faster. I will thank
> you sincerely for your contribution if I win.
>
There you have it folks. Mr. Griffin has just kindly explained everything
you need to know about playing the lottery. Any further discussion is
futile. We can all just pack up and get the hell outta here. Last one out
can kill the lights. That will probably be Bob the janitor.
IXL Software
news:425AB220...@icdus.com...
Ahhh horseshit! That word is probably used regularly by every English
speaking human over the age of two in today's real world. As far as your
"broadcast standards" go, try to bear in mind that USA=World is not a true
statement. I can watch any of 25 TV stations out of Toronto right now and
every one of them allows the broadcast of uncensored language...up to and
including our national newscasts. The same can probably be said for almost
any country on Earth *except* the USA. This "family friendly" fantasy of
yours is about as far removed from reality as one can get. The rgl "family"
is severely dysfunctional as any blind man can plainly see. You have no more
authority here than the next lunatic who happens to blow through the
door...as evidenced by the fact that several of the resident lunatics
regularly spit in your fucking eye.
Robert Perkis
Paracelsus wrote:
>
> "IXL Software" <ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Kx16e.15383$6k4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> |
> | I believe that the correct way to interpret the odds is to say that each
> | ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*.
>
> <snip>
>
> | We all enjoy a natural reduction of odds that is conditional on a simple
> | assumption. The assumption is that the exact same 6 winning numbers will
> not
> | be randomly drawn within (or even beyond) the period of a human lifetime
> at
> | a rate of 2 draws per week. In practical terms, this means that you can
> | subtract the number of actual results that have already been drawn from
> the
> | total of possible outcomes. In the case of the Canadian 649 lottery, there
> | will have been 2,214 draw results by the time this is posted. Based on
> that
> | assumption, this means that the effective number of outcomes for draw
> 2,215
> | will be 13,981,602. Not a *big* reduction by any means...but a reduction
> | nonetheless for as long as the conditional assumption remains true. To my
> | mind at least, there is little use in playing lines that have already been
> | drawn.
>
> First you say each combination has an equal chance of being drawn, then you
> say the chances of a previous combination being drawn again is practically
> zero. What's wrong with this picture?
Even if you buy 100 or 1,000 Quick Pick Lucky Dip tickets
your odds of winning a jackpot are effectively zero. RP
>
> It looks like a little thought is conspicuously more absent in some parts
> than in others.
>
> | Teach me something that I don't already know...I beg of
> | you.
>
> That's what they all say.
John Griffin
> "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
Obviously you didn't understand what I said. I didn't mean for it
to scare you into snipping it, but thanks for the laughs.
> The rest of this lame attempt to ridicule me as some kind of a
> newbie fool is totally unnecessary. File it in your deepest
> body cavity. I need your confrontational disposition about as
> much as a cow needs bigger tits.
ROTMFFLMMFAO!
Robert Perkis
erce wrote:
>
> IXL Software wrote:
> > I believe that the correct way to interpret the odds is to say that
> each
> > ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*. In other words, if
> you
> > play
> > 1,000 tickets, you have 1,000 *separate (but equal)* chances of 1 in
> > 13,983,816 at the
> > jackpot...not an aggregate chance of 1 in 13,983.816.
>
> so if you buy 13983816 different tickets your chances are not 13983816
> in 13983816 but you have 13983816 equal 1 in 13983816 chances of
> winning
>
> > If a player simply restricts their played lines to a sum between
> 100-199,
> > this results in 12,169,389 lines that pass the filter. This results
> in a
> > nearly 13% reduction in eligible lines and consequently a nearly 15%
> > improvement of the odds in the players' favour. Notice that this is
> very
> > much a clearly *positive* improvement over the concept of merely
> purchasing
> > more tickets as described above. Simple arithmetic shows that about
> 87% of
> > all the possible lines are covered.
>
> harry bets on all the horses in a race and you bet on the horses with
> short odds
>
> either of you millionnaires yet?
>
> erce
You're in a fox hole and ten guys are shooting at you
the odds are 1 against 10 or 1 in 10 of winning.
Another guy from your side joins you, the new odds are
both 2 against 10 and 1 in 5 of your side winning.
The thing of it is, when selling a system to improve
the odds of winning, which makes better advertising
copy?
On the other hand, if we view these chances as dollars
rather then tickets, the U.S. states that offer two
tickets for a dollar cut the odds per dollar in half in
their description of the game.
IXL Software
news:iZ96e.16201$il....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "IXL Software" <ixl....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Kx16e.15383$6k4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> |
> | ticket in play has a *discrete and equal chance*.
>
>
> | We all enjoy a natural reduction of odds that is conditional on a simple
> | assumption. The assumption is that the exact same 6 winning numbers will
> not
> | be randomly drawn within (or even beyond) the period of a human lifetime
> at
> | a rate of 2 draws per week. In practical terms, this means that you can
> | subtract the number of actual results that have already been drawn from
> the
> | total of possible outcomes. In the case of the Canadian 649 lottery,
> there
> | will have been 2,214 draw results by the time this is posted. Based on
> that
> | assumption, this means that the effective number of outcomes for draw
> 2,215
> | will be 13,981,602. Not a *big* reduction by any means...but a reduction
> | nonetheless for as long as the conditional assumption remains true. To
> my
> | mind at least, there is little use in playing lines that have already
> been
> | drawn.
>
>
Gee...I almost forgot to reply to our world renowned in-house Nobel
candidate.
> First you say each combination has an equal chance of being drawn, then
> you
> say the chances of a previous combination being drawn again is practically
> zero. What's wrong with this picture?
>
> It looks like a little thought is conspicuously more absent in some parts
> than in others.
>
How silly of me to make a clearly defined assumption that obviously may or
may not stand the test of time. Not quite as silly as your assumption that
extremely distant astronomical bodies have some kind of direct influence on
lottery draws mind you.
>
>
> | Teach me something that I don't already know...I beg of
> | you.
>
>
> That's what they all say.
Yes...to everyone but you. The only question I have for you is your ETA for
the return trip to Earth.
John Griffin
Because.
"Walks in the newsgroup cool and slow,
who calls the moderator daddio..."
Robert Perkis
Colin Fairbrother wrote:
>
> IXL
>
> If you can't understand that the incidence if occurrence for each Sum
> grouping is pretty well identical then there is no point in me trying to
> communicate with you.
>
> I should have known this from your naive understanding of probability and
> reduction.
>
> I don't try to argue with a stupid person - it's stupid - and you express
> youself well enough but in a stupid way.
>
> In conclusion I would kike to be more erudite and say - Get F**ked - either
> way will do you good as you are so up yourself that you may disgigure your
> tongue..
>
> Colin
Please limit yourself to words spoken on traditional broadcast
tv. If you must use the "F" word fix it like f**k so it doesn't
affect the family friendly status of this usenet news group.
Thank you. Robert Perkis / r.g.l.faq
nan
has something new.It's a very very high skill to complete I
think,instead of many other silly sellers.
nan
gARY
> > Paul,
> > do you ever get bored with little rat bastard terriers nipping
> > away at your ankles?
> >
>
> Wrong breed of dog
What bread of dog post's the same thing, now - three (3) times?
Give a monkey a typewriter . . .
Give Nick-UK a kin keyboard,
gARY
Gerry
Daddio,
You missed this one from Saturday
"gARY" <FindCon...@Web.Site> wrote in message
news:d39kfd$rqq$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <RonGros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113072154.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The reason some people don't know for sure
> > if they are going to Heaven when they die
> > is because they just don't know.
>
> Why is it, animals don't fear death?
>
> I know, do you?
>
> Fuck off dip!
> gARY
>
>
> --
>
> Affordable Wheeling:-
> http://www.justservices.com/9ukp.html
>
>
Sorry, I didn't feel obligated to do any editing.
John Griffin
Bob is making a sincere effort to shield the children from "the f
word," and that stimulates a childishly defiant use of it. Weird.
Your ideas about the lottery are so naive as to be amusing, but
lashing out like a squealing little brat isn't quite so funny.
Get a job.
John Griffin
You could have saved time and said the whole thing with one word:
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!" The tantrum was entertaining, but on the
other hand, why don't you try to refute what I said?
Anyway, you're wrong. There's one more thing you need to know,
and it's so obviously true that I'm amazed that you aren't aware
of it. Here it is...
If you have $X in your pocket and you want to spend it with the
goal of winning a 6/49 lottery jackpot, buying more tickets is
infinitely wiser than buying lottery software. Yes, infinite;
the X/13983816 probability that the tickets will help divided by
the zero probability that the software will help.
IXL Software
You just said it yourself Bub...waste of time. Trying to have a rational and
productive conversation with the likes of you is like trying to accomplish
the same with Charles Manson. Weren't you part of the Family before you
decided to hide out in the foothills of the Cascades? Wouldn't find it
terribly surprising to see your name and mug on America's Most Wanted some
Saturday night.
CLICK!
gARY
> > The rgl "family" is severely
> > dysfunctional as any blind man can plainly see.
A blind man would like to be "dysfunctional" IF he could "plainly see"!!
Who would you say is most "dysfunctional" Paul, the blind man that would
like to see or the pratt that expects them to?
> >You have no
> > more authority here than the next lunatic who happens to blow
> > through the door...as evidenced by the fact that several of
> > the resident lunatics regularly spit in your fucking eye.
So, are now your calling yourself a "resident lunatic" by using the f-word
also?
Get a life!
gARY
Little point in replying. ;)
Nigel
experiences with their site and customer service so I can't recommend
them, but follow the instructions below and you'll see the odds they
offer on the various sum-of-balls ranges for a 6/49 lotto.
Go to www.willhill.co.uk
On the left hand menu click on 'lotto' (it's near the bottom)
Click on the green 'play lotto now' button
On the 'lotto games' menu (top right), select 'Spanish Lotto - Total
Balls Value' then click on go
Interesting that the odds per range are symmetrical but the ranges
aren't. For example, the least likely sums of the 201.00 ranges are 51
(1206 combinations) and 250 (1057 combinations). I guess that means some
ranges are better value than others. I assume the decimal notation and
strange values for the odds mean that eg a 1 unit bet on range 66-75
pays 101 units rather than the 102 units you'd get if the odds were
quoted as 101/1.
Evil Nigel
<sniperama>
Nik Barker
I know you'll treat this with the same contempt as you do everyone
else's, but I don't care what you think anyway, so I'll continue.
You disappeared from here a long time ago, the reason for which or part
of it was your illness. I am genuinely sorry for your ill-health. And I
genuinely hope your ill-heath is over.
But then you came back in here. I really wonder why. Not that I want
you to answer that pondering of mine, it's just to me it doesn't make
any sense.
Ever since you re-appeared you have displayed nothing but anger,
frustration, foul language, selective hearing, selective analysis. You
always maintain that it's you that has to put up with all the spleen
being vented in here, but always, always, always fail to recognise that
not only do you dish it out in vast quantities, but that you begin it.
You never accept responsibility for it.
Robert isn't perfect, none of are. And probably most in here, would
admit to that, but there'd always be one notable exception. You.
If you don't like it in here, then sod off, and go and chew your wasps
elsewhere.
Ta
Nik
Gerry
"gARY" <FindCon...@Web.Site> wrote in message
F***ing leech is still hiding behind others throwing spitballs.
Paracelsus
"Nik Barker" <nicholas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113343904.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Paul
|
| I know you'll treat this with the same contempt as you do everyone
| else's, but I don't care what you think anyway, so I'll continue.
Party on!
|
| You disappeared from here a long time ago, the reason for which or part
| of it was your illness. I am genuinely sorry for your ill-health. And I
| genuinely hope your ill-heath is over.
Paul says he's been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, an incurable and
progressive degenerative neurological disorder. Cycles of relapse and
remission will sometimes give way to a secondary progressive slide into
creeping paralysis, loss of speech and respiratory failure. It's a f**king
dreadful way to die, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. (This is a worst
case scenario. The condition is highly variable and unpredictable and may,
in limine, have little or no effect on life expectancy.)
|
| But then you came back in here. I really wonder why. Not that I want
| you to answer that pondering of mine, it's just to me it doesn't make
| any sense.
To me neither. If I'd heard news like that I'm pretty sure I'd have
undergone a major attitude / priority adjustment, and not carried on with
the same-old same-old. I'd probably want to expend all my time and energy
holed up in my attic working on my Grand Theory of Astrolottology and my FRS
acceptance speech. I certainly wouldn't be here chewing the cud with you
bozos (no offence, guys, eh?).
|
| Ever since you re-appeared you have displayed nothing but anger,
| frustration, foul language, selective hearing, selective analysis. You
| always maintain that it's you that has to put up with all the spleen
| being vented in here, but always, always, always fail to recognise that
| not only do you dish it out in vast quantities, but that you begin it.
| You never accept responsibility for it.
Karma is a bitch.
The guy can't help himself. He can't string two paragraphs together without
giving offence and drawing ridicule upon his head, and never could.
|
| Robert isn't perfect, none of are. And probably most in here, would
| admit to that, but there'd always be one notable exception. You.
|
| If you don't like it in here, then sod off, and go and chew your wasps
| elsewhere.
|
I suspect Paul likes the cut and thrust ambience here more than he would
ever admit.
Gerry
And you don't ?
On Feb 27 you said this:
(quote)
I can do lotto. I can do war. If I had a choice, I'd rather do lotto.
(You can quote me on that!)
(end quote)
Were you not given a choice ?
John Griffin
That's incomplete. You have exactly the same problem trying to
have a rational and productive conversation with anyone.
A rational and productive conversation would mean that you try to
refute my comments, including this one, about your mass of
misconceptions. Furthermore, a rational and productive
conversation would not start with you asserting that those you want
to converse with are "small minds."
> Weren't you part of the Family before you decided to hide out
> in the foothills of the Cascades? Wouldn't find it terribly
> surprising to see your name and mug on America's Most Wanted
> some Saturday night.
>
> CLICK!
So, you agree with everything I said, and you're mad as hell and
you're not going to take it any more, right?
Right. By the way, that tantrum was pretty sorry compared to the
first one, except that it was about equally infantile.
Get a job.
IXL Software
news:1113343904.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I know you'll treat this with the same contempt as you do everyone
> else's, but I don't care what you think anyway, so I'll continue.
>
Makes perfect sense. You don't care but you'll continue anyway. I'm
beginning to fear that there's something seriously wrong with the air and
water over there.
> You disappeared from here a long time ago, the reason for which or part
> of it was your illness. I am genuinely sorry for your ill-health. And I
> genuinely hope your ill-heath is over.
>
> But then you came back in here. I really wonder why. Not that I want
> you to answer that pondering of mine, it's just to me it doesn't make
> any sense.
>
First of all, my reasons for either leaving or returning to this place are
absolutely none of your business. I don't need to justify my activities to
you or anyone else. Clear?
> Ever since you re-appeared you have displayed nothing but anger,
> frustration, foul language, selective hearing, selective analysis. You
> always maintain that it's you that has to put up with all the spleen
> being vented in here, but always, always, always fail to recognise that
> not only do you dish it out in vast quantities, but that you begin it.
> You never accept responsibility for it.
>
This could easily be a generic description that applies to over 90% of the
regulars here. Make sure you notify each of them that they qualify for your
distinguished award of recognition. I'm sure they'll be just as pleased as I
am.
> Robert isn't perfect, none of are. And probably most in here, would
> admit to that, but there'd always be one notable exception. You.
>
> If you don't like it in here, then sod off, and go and chew your wasps
> elsewhere.
>
> Ta
> Nik
It seems readily apparent that you have no interest in the civil and
*on-topic* reply I made to your first post in this thread a few days ago.
Instead, you choose to devote your attention to the disruptive and off-topic
crap that was initiated, I'll remind you, by everyone's favourite
shit-disturber, Carlin The Cretin. I lashed out at that miserable SOB and
felt perfectly justified in doing so. Try directing your self-righteous
indignation at the real offender here.
Unfortunately, a man I have always admired, respected, supported and
considered a friend got caught in the crossfire. I was trying to make an
important point with some harsh remarks that I now regret making. I
sincerely apologize here and now to Robert Perkis for my offensive outburst
that was fuelled by misdirected anger.
Paul McCoy
IXL Software
news:jpZ6e.15613$Uc7....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> news:1113343904.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | Paul
> |
> | I know you'll treat this with the same contempt as you do everyone
> | else's, but I don't care what you think anyway, so I'll continue.
>
>
> Party on!
>
>
>
> |
> | You disappeared from here a long time ago, the reason for which or part
> | of it was your illness. I am genuinely sorry for your ill-health. And I
> | genuinely hope your ill-heath is over.
>
>
> Paul says he's been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, an incurable and
> progressive degenerative neurological disorder. Cycles of relapse and
> remission will sometimes give way to a secondary progressive slide into
> creeping paralysis, loss of speech and respiratory failure. It's a
> f**king
> dreadful way to die, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. (This is a worst
> case scenario. The condition is highly variable and unpredictable and
> may,
> in limine, have little or no effect on life expectancy.)
>
I find these totally unnecessary remarks both personally offensive and
extremely objectionable. Our silly little rivalry here is one thing, but
this goes way over the line of deeply personal intrusion. How is this even
remotely related to the topic of this thread?
Nick UK
"IXL Software" wrote..
>>
>
> I find these totally unnecessary remarks both personally offensive and
> extremely objectionable. Our silly little rivalry here is one thing, but
> this goes way over the line of deeply personal intrusion.
Would this also be a deeply personal intrusion and considered objectionable
by any person you aimed it at? You remember..
> Shall I tell everyone the *true* story about your clumsy attempt to
> fraudulently obtain a software unlock code?
Or is it only Paul McCoy that can be deeply offended by things posted here?
One rule for McCoy, another rule for the rest?
Yet *another* example of stomach-churning arrogance by a 2-faced lying
bastard!
Nick.
Nick UK
"IXL Software" wrote..
>
> It seems readily apparent that you have no interest in the civil and
> *on-topic* reply I made to your first post in this thread a few days ago.
> Instead, you choose to devote your attention to the disruptive and
> off-topic
> crap that was initiated, I'll remind you, by everyone's favourite
> shit-disturber, Carlin The Cretin. I lashed out at that miserable SOB and
> felt perfectly justified in doing so. Try directing your self-righteous
> indignation at the real offender here.
>
*You* are the real offender here McCoy. *You* are the real shit disturber!
It was *you* who made the unfounded accusation against me. An accusation
that you cannot prove, simply because there is no proof! You are a
confounded, well established fkn *liar* and you know it!
Had you not made the accusation against me, none of this would have have
occurred and most folks here will be well aware of that fact by now.
> Unfortunately, a man I have always admired, respected, supported and
> considered a friend got caught in the crossfire. I was trying to make an
> important point with some harsh remarks that I now regret making. I
> sincerely apologize here and now to Robert Perkis for my offensive
> outburst
> that was fuelled by misdirected anger.
>
> Paul McCoy
Sincerely apologise? You don't know the meaning of sincerity. You are an
insincere, arrogant, crawling fkn creep and a 2-faced lying bastard!
Nick.
Gerry
"Nick UK" <lottol...@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:drc7e.22$WP4...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
.> Yet *another* example of stomach-churning arrogance by a 2-faced lying
> bastard!
>
> Nick.
Hey Harry !
Can you slip this mongrel a bone to gnaw on ?
IXL Software
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh-oh...now he's calling me a creep. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! Total meltdown
appears to be imminent.
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
IXL Software
This fkn genius doesn't seem to realize that he has done and *continues* to
do far more damage to himself than I could ever hope to do by purposeful
design.
I posted a lengthy message here on Feb.5/05 under the thread "Be Advised".
He has chosen to pull one particular sentence out of that context which
simply said,
"Shall I tell everyone the *true* story about your clumsy attempt to
fraudulently obtain a software unlock code?"
This was in response to an unprovoked personal attack he had made on my name
and IXL Software in not one, but a *series* of slanderous posts that had
already gone on for several days. I published that statement once and once
only. That was almost 70 days ago now. Since that time, he *himself* has
foolishly repeated that statement innumerable times in practically every
thread that has appeared in this newsgroup...no matter what the topic. Look
at what he's doing in this thread for instance.
I am merely ill. He is truly sick.