Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No, professor Iliya Bluskov does not promote deceitful claims for Lotto Covers or Wheels or Anything
83 views
Skip to first unread message
lot...@telus.net
Jan 8, 2014, 4:00:26 AM1/8/14
to
Mr. Fairbrother,
I am sorry to hear you did not quite like the tone of my response, but let me refresh your memory. You wrote a post about an year ago, in a public forum, with a sensational title and style "Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims..."; I just saw it recently. Perhaps, you could not predict the consequences at that time, perhaps, you were aware (I tend to believe the latter), but the fact is that a search at Google for my name reveals your post, with that title, as a top entry, and the tone of your post is anything but friendly. The problem is that you used my name in a very inappropriate manner, mostly to attract attention to your writing and to advertise your own products. The fact is that whoever searches for my name, now unavoidably connects it with "deceitful claims". Do you really believe that "I" promote deceitful claims? If there was anything deceitful in the standard advertising material you received, you should have contacted the people who sent it to you, asked them the questions you wanted answered, etc., do not you think? They would have probably been happy to correct the advertisement correspondingly, and perhaps would have been thankful for your observations and help. I am sure whoever sent you this advertisement must have sent you contact information as well? It is not my name and address on that advertisement, right? Most likely, it is not a Canadian address either. Instead, you conveniently decided that I am promoting something myself, deceitful at that. Which, intentionally or not, makes your post libelous, because the said advertising materials are not written by me. By the way, I do not promote anything, neither myself nor the material from my book. My books are about the lottery entertainment strategy called lotto systems or wheels; indeed, a classical object studied by many people before me, as you correctly pointed out; nevertheless, an object which I studied as well and made some progress, so in my books I am sharing my findings. I do not promote playing the lotteries, I do not promote playing with many numbers and systems, and I clearly explain what the odds are of winning a big prize. I do not make outrageous claims of any kind, which one can find in pretty much any other book or software on lotto strategies. I have said it in my books, in many places: It is a strategy for people who have already decided to play more than 2 tickets. There is a certain difference that a system can make in the way wins are distributed over time; I comment on that in my books; and as I said before, I stand behind every word and sentence written in my books. For everything else, please contact the sender...
Yes, I used to write in rec.gambling.lottery, mostly answering questions and giving away a system or two, some 15 years ago. Then the group got flooded with advertisements and general nonsense, a bit more than I can handle, so I drifted away.
Now, I am not interested in criticizing your findings; I could have done it long time ago, if I wanted; and I am not trying to criticize anyone else's products; there are simply way too many out there; the readers can decide for themselves pretty well; plus there are other people who do that anyway, and post their findings; try the lottery-guy.com, for example. I will just give you a hint: An example with just two systems over a sample of 1000 draws is still just an example, not a proof. Just like the following: I play 6 fixed numbers over 1000 draws and get return of 23%, you play another selection of 6 numbers and you get 14%. Does this prove anything? Can I claim that my 6 numbers are "better", or it is just variance; randomness playing its games?
Iliya Bluskov
=========================================================================
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
> 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 elsewhere; 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
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:32:00 UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
>
>
> > 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.".
> >
>
> >
>
> > Colin Fairbrother
I am sorry to hear you did not quite like the tone of my response, but let me refresh your memory. You wrote a post about an year ago, in a public forum, with a sensational title and style "Professor Iliya Bluskov promotes deceitful claims..."; I just saw it recently. Perhaps, you could not predict the consequences at that time, perhaps, you were aware (I tend to believe the latter), but the fact is that a search at Google for my name reveals your post, with that title, as a top entry, and the tone of your post is anything but friendly. The problem is that you used my name in a very inappropriate manner, mostly to attract attention to your writing and to advertise your own products. The fact is that whoever searches for my name, now unavoidably connects it with "deceitful claims". Do you really believe that "I" promote deceitful claims? If there was anything deceitful in the standard advertising material you received, you should have contacted the people who sent it to you, asked them the questions you wanted answered, etc., do not you think? They would have probably been happy to correct the advertisement correspondingly, and perhaps would have been thankful for your observations and help. I am sure whoever sent you this advertisement must have sent you contact information as well? It is not my name and address on that advertisement, right? Most likely, it is not a Canadian address either. Instead, you conveniently decided that I am promoting something myself, deceitful at that. Which, intentionally or not, makes your post libelous, because the said advertising materials are not written by me. By the way, I do not promote anything, neither myself nor the material from my book. My books are about the lottery entertainment strategy called lotto systems or wheels; indeed, a classical object studied by many people before me, as you correctly pointed out; nevertheless, an object which I studied as well and made some progress, so in my books I am sharing my findings. I do not promote playing the lotteries, I do not promote playing with many numbers and systems, and I clearly explain what the odds are of winning a big prize. I do not make outrageous claims of any kind, which one can find in pretty much any other book or software on lotto strategies. I have said it in my books, in many places: It is a strategy for people who have already decided to play more than 2 tickets. There is a certain difference that a system can make in the way wins are distributed over time; I comment on that in my books; and as I said before, I stand behind every word and sentence written in my books. For everything else, please contact the sender...
Yes, I used to write in rec.gambling.lottery, mostly answering questions and giving away a system or two, some 15 years ago. Then the group got flooded with advertisements and general nonsense, a bit more than I can handle, so I drifted away.
Now, I am not interested in criticizing your findings; I could have done it long time ago, if I wanted; and I am not trying to criticize anyone else's products; there are simply way too many out there; the readers can decide for themselves pretty well; plus there are other people who do that anyway, and post their findings; try the lottery-guy.com, for example. I will just give you a hint: An example with just two systems over a sample of 1000 draws is still just an example, not a proof. Just like the following: I play 6 fixed numbers over 1000 draws and get return of 23%, you play another selection of 6 numbers and you get 14%. Does this prove anything? Can I claim that my 6 numbers are "better", or it is just variance; randomness playing its games?
Iliya Bluskov
=========================================================================
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
> 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 elsewhere; 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
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:32:00 UTC-8, Colin Fairbrother wrote:
>
>
> > 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.".
> >
>
> >
>
> > Colin Fairbrother
0 new messages