4 Laps to be precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttahflake
Printable View
4 Laps to be precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttahflake
Send $4 total. That gets you one ticket in each drawing. I'm just trying to minimize the number of laps to buy tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
4 laps sent
$4 sent.
It would make for one hell of a lot of skiing and hijinx!
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Language am hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Counselor assumes the entire thread was in fact read.
Or any of it, for that matter.
Just paypalled splat $400. Really looking forward to the celebration.
Paypal sent, send me my check!
When people stop by my new ski chalet.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NauticalIm...phin-small.gif
I am so getting my van painted when this hits
Why not, I'll skip lunch today and send my 4 pesos your way.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/wp-c...free-candy.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by ticketchecker
Lol.
Pooling a group's money is about as dumb as it gets. The biggest "best" group would be everybody, right? Bigger group, bigger odds, and all... Except the Everybody Pool is guaranteed of losing half their money cuz half goes to Education.
Also never play Quick Pick. The lady in front of me in the 7-11 line had forgot all about the huge jackpot. A carton of cigarettes was all she wuz gonna buy. But she saw the play slip in my hand and last second bought a Quick Pick. Those woulda been my numbers, my jackpot, if I too was letting the computer do the picking. Her millions instead of mine. Prevent that, for peace of mind...
If your point is that the lottery itself is a losing proposition, nobody here would argue. But if we assume that we are going to play the lottery, you got some splainin' to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by EZB
I see no logical reason why pooling money to buy multiple tickets is "as dumb as it gets" nor why quick pick is a bad idea.
Danno, on the quick pick thing I am certain it makes more sense to play the same numbers forever hoping they hit someday. Quick Pick is more random and likely less likely to hit, but really who cares.
Especially since we all “know” we’re gonna lose... so any dollars more than zero is better than zero.
If we lose: well, I expect to. But if we win, that’s just gravy...magnificent, delicious gravy.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
There is absolutely no math to back that up. The only thing that is true about quick pick is that the more people that play QP, the more likely there will be a winner because the numbers get distributed more randomly/evenly. But take 2 tickets, one QP and one chosen numbers, there is simply no way you can prove to anyone that the QP ticket is less likely to hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
People like playing their own numbers and make up all sorts of reasons why it is better, but there is zero logic to that.
When you play Quick Pick, the computer is only allowed to give you a combination that somebody else has already played. It's to the Lottery Commission's advantage when there are no winners (= more rollovers), and therefore it's also to the Lottery Commission's advantage to have lotsa duplicates. HTH.
You will have to provide a citation if your thesis relies on the QP not being truly random, but instead is picked from a pool of existing picked numbers. If that were true, the very first person in line could never get a QP, they would have to wait until people play chosen numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by EZB
That sounds about 10,000,000 times harder to program than a random number picker for whole integers from 1-60.Quote:
Originally Posted by EZB
“Mastering the art of dentistry and winning the lottery”
For some reason, lottery math is really hard for people to decipher.