Re: Sherry Davis: Criminally stupid/insane

"John Griffin" <thatPsychobilly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns982F5DF0F5CA3thathillbillyyahooco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Sherry Davis" <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<psychotic babbling snipped>

Would you <snicker> like to back up that idiotic little chant with some
evidence, or does simply chanting it get you off? Hint: The latter.

John dear, I have done it so many times it requires no further repetition.
LOL, but, if you really want another sampling I will include one in the
footer. : )


I apologize that John "The Troll" Griffin has abandoned the
discussion thread we had going on rec.gambling.lottery and
chosen, instead, to inflict himself on newsgroups where the
readers are unfamiliar with his previous psychotic ranting.
I can only presume that he did this because he has embarrassed
himself beyond redemption on rec.gambling.lottery.

[Sniped due to profanity. John, please remember the rules about profanity]


To give you a bit of understanding of Johns psychoses you need
look no further then
http://rglsheepman.bravehost.com/Griffin.html
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=thathillbilly@yahoo
ie.com

I also deeply regret intruding into your newsgroup and having
to respond to his conglomeration of lies, twisted statements
and misquotes here but since he will not face me on
rec.gambling.lottery I fear he has left me no other choice.


[Sniped due to profanity. John, please remember the rules about profanity]


-----

To John "The Troll" Griffin:
This is the first thing about you that has surprised me.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that you have chosen to display
your ignorance across a multitude of newsgroups instead of
continuing to embarrass yourself on rec.gambling.lottery.

<snicker> You aren't "absolutely flabbergasted" by any recent events in
your fat life. You're congenitally flabbergasted.

It takes an awful lot to surprise me but your taking your ignorance "on the
road" (so to speak) came from way out in left field.
Why did you feel compelled to cross-post your flame to 5 different
newsgroups?
Had you hoped to display your psychoses to an entirely new audience?
If so, congrats are in order because you succeeded.


In past when you have humiliated yourself you have often
abandoned a thread to scurried off and start a new thread but
you have never scurried off to an entirely new newsgroup.

<snicker> Damn, how desperately you wish you could point to some evidence
for that pathetic snivel. Anyway, re-dismissing your pathetic little
litany of scatterbrained remarks isn't necessary. Once you're wound up,
you continue to spew evidence that you're a couple of fucking idiots. If I
see that you need another slap, I'll do it, as long as you continue to be
laughably stupid.

"Snicker" indeed.
A rough count of the threads you have abandoned (that I can remember) is
about 20.
This post is here because you did not respond to the original posts (posted
3 days ago) that are located in other threads.

Question:
Is your constant referring to "slapping" me supposed to intimidate me?
Is the bullyboy still trying to make me cry?

If so that would be hilarious coming on top of your "Boo-Hoo, make the bad
girl stop hurting me" post of a few days ago.


My only guess is that you fear that you will lose your title
of "Psycho of the Decade" to Paracelsus. If that is the case
you need not fear, he has a long way to go before he can strip
you of your hard won title.

<snicker> Bimbo Fantasyland titles are "easy come, easy go," and no one
with enough brain cells for an occasional interaction between a pair of
them can do anything but laugh at the idea of you being in a position to
assess any of them.

Agreed that "Fantasyland titles are 'easy come, easy go'" but yours is
different. It is one that you have fought 12+ hard years for.
Fear not John, you far outshine any of the contenders and can proudly
proclaim to one and all that you are truly the "Psycho of the Decade".

[Sniped due to profanity. John, please remember the rules about profanity]


As you have chosen to abandon the threads we had going on
rec.gambling.lottery, I have consolidated my last group of
unanswered post.

<snicker> It doesn't matter to me what vehicles I use to actuate your
posting reflex. Your tantrums are going to be hilariously illiterate,
innumerate, ignorant, insane and idiotic regardless of how they're slapped
out of you.

Gee John, if that is the case why have continually abandoned ongoing
discussions only to pop up three days later with a whole new thread on a
whole different topic.


Please respond to the following as I have answered many dozens
of questions from you but you have failed to answer a single
one of mine.


[Sniped due to inaccuracy. John, please remember the rules about making
things up]


REFUTE THIS:

<snicker> Your misconstructions and distortions of all this have been
dismissed as the ravings of a pair of defective bimbos. Except for sport,
there's no need to readdress any of your lies and psychotic raving, Crazy
Sherry. Everyone who reads this group knows you're insane, ignorant,
innumerate and illiterate, so that closes the nonissue. However, it might
be fun to launch you into another rage here...

Why do the, approximately, 30% of humanly produced number sets
account for, approximately, 70% of the winning number sets?

Why does the sun rise in the west in your fantasyland?

Once again you are answering a question with nonsense.
If, as you say, attempts to select numbers through methodology is futile
then please give a LOGICAL and REASONABLE explanation for the above FACTS.


Don't give me that tired old 'give me facts' nonsense. I gave
you the facts in the attachment to 'Draw Stats - Quick Picks
Vs. Choose Your Own'. Have you continually refused comment on

You posted your own misconstructions of something you looked at. Since
you're illiterate, your attempt to interpret it is of no value.

ROFLMAO!!!
I posted a zip file with the COMPLETE history details and statistics on
1,100 + consecutive draws of an official state lottery and you proclaimed it
to be irrelevant to any discussion dealing with the lottery. My goodness
John, if that's not relevant what is?
And if my attempt to interpret it is of no value then you interpret it.
You already have, haven't you?
But you will not comment on your own observations because they contradict
your moronic little fantasy "lotto laws".


the data provided because it contradicts your theory?
Also do not throw out your usual "sh*t happens" catchall
phrase. When something happens once or twice its "sh*t
happens, over 1100 times it becomes an undeniable fact.

REFUTE THIS:
It is your unflinching belief "that the only way to improve
your odds is buy another ticket" and RGL is a newsgroup whose
subscribers are actively seeking methodologies that will
produce more productive number lines. Since you have never
contributed any insight into these methodologies other then to
discount and ridicule them out of hand then one must assume to
believe your only intent is to disrupt the group and abuse its
subscribers.

Since the only way you could have any clue as to my intent would be to ask
me and then be capable of understanding the answers, no refutation is
needed. However, since you asked, maybe a non-bimbo is interested, so
here it is: My intent is the same as every other poster's: To express my
opinions. A secondary intent is to interrupt strings of blatant lies,
e.g., your introductory airheaded and mendacious advertisement for your
worthless software.

Your opinions are well known and you are certainly entitled to them.
What you are not entitled to is your malicious and profane verbal assaults
on every person that posts to this newsgroup.
You have something constructive to say, GREAT!!!
I, for one, would love to hear it.
Otherwise, keep your deranged, psychotic spew of filth to yourself.


Anyway, every ball in the bin has precisely the same probability of
popping up next; therefore every permutation of every set of six (or
whatever) of them has precisely the same probability of being drawn; and
therefore every combination has precisely the same probability of
occurrence; and therefore the only way to improve your chance of winning a
lottery jackpot is to buy another ticket. Maybe you were able to follow
that, but it's certain that this implication is far beyond your tenuous
and limited mental grasp: Therefore, a quick-pick ticket has precisely the
same probability of matching the drawn numbers as a ticket bearing the
same number of lines selected by any of the superstitious nonsense you
spew.

Prove out your above statement by any legitimate means.
As this is an "open book" question please post your work.

[Sniped due to profanity. John, please remember the rules about profanity]


ANSWER THIS:

I did. Twice. It isn't relevant to lottery drawings.

John, You have made only one response to this question.
After three days of long hard thought you evaded it by coming came up with a
silly little math equation that, although you bragged that it would stump
everyone, was on about a 4th grade level.
Ignoring the rules and bring a loaded die was not an answer; it was total
evasion.

LOL, if I wrong then simply post you answer here.

[Sniped due to attempt at evasion. John, please remember the rule about
attempts at evading a question with a question]


You have been captured by terrorist and taken to their camp in
the desert. Here they have a game whose rules are simple.
You must pick a number from 1 to 6.
They then roll a die on the commander's desk.
If you have chosen correctly you can go free.
If you have chosen incorrectly you die a slow horrible death.
Since being held prisoner you have seen this game played out
100 times before.
You have seen the number 6 come up 85 times, the number 5 come
up 5 times, the number 4 come up 4 times, the number 3 come up
3 times, the number 2 has come up twice and the number 1 has
come up only once. You are dragged to the commander's office,
the guard holds the die in his hand, you are ordered to choose
a number. What number do you choose and why?
(Sorry, no asking for a fair die, no loaded dice, no asking
that it be rolled in a vacuum chamber, no getting diarrhea of
the mouth in the hopes they lose interest and go away.)

REFUTE THIS:
6/50 = 12%.

Why would anyone want to refute that? On the other hand, your actual
statement "6/50, or 1 in 12" will be refuted very early in your very first
Remedial Arithmetic session if you can even find your way to the
classroom.

Yes, incredible as it may seem, I made a faux pase. It's not the first time
I have made a mistype and it certainly will not be the last. When I noticed
my error I posted a correction (nine times so far) to it but you seem unable
to let go of the single mistake you have caught me in.

Would you like me to start making a major issue over every little typing and
spelling error you make? If not, let it go.


REFUTE THIS:
The odds of pulling a pre-selected set of 6 objects from a
pool of 50 objects would be;
6/50 × 5/49 × 4/48 × 3/47 × 2/46 × 1/45 = 720/11,441,304,000

Why would anyone want to refute that? On the other hand, that's the exact
response you gave to "What is the probability of a particular number being
drawn in a 6/50 lottery?" Dumb bimbo.

It was never intended to be an answer to that statement and was not posted
as such. But you know that don't you?
It was a response dealing with how to configure the odds of winning a 6/50
lottery. Perhaps if you moved your lips when you read you would be able to
correctly read a simple English paragraph. Dumb moron.

Want me to post it again?
Ok, quoted directly from:
Sherry Davis <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx>
Monday, July 10, 2006 12:04 AM
Re: Lottery facts for Sherry
"the odds of pulling a pre-selected set of 6 objects from a pool of 50
objects would be;
6/50 × 5/49 × 4/48 × 3/47 × 2/46 × 1/45 = 720/11,441,304,000"

A "preselected set" John, NOT one particular number.

Now that about 9 times I have pointed out your lie.
Although your continued repetition of this lie, coupled with the ability of
RGL subscribers to use a scroll bar, simply reinforces the fact that you are
a perpetual liar and it is getting a little old.
Let it go John, you look stupider and stupider every time you repeat the
lie.


REFUTE THIS:
If I buy two tickets with the same numbers, I have not doubled
my chances of winning.

Why would anyone want to refute that? On the other hand, buying another
ticket is the only (*) way to improve your chance of winning a lottery
jackpot.

(*) "Only" has a well-defined meaning. It does NOT, as you've shrieked
over and over that you believe, imply certainty. Take my word for it.


LOL, John. Why don't you make every ones life a bit easier (lol, yea, that
going to happen) and fess up to the fact you have been incorrectly quoting
the statement you stole and claimed as your own.
"The only way to improve your odds for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy
another ticket and make sure it doesn't have the same numbers you already
selected on the previous tickets"

Or you could even make it 100% accurate by saying.
"Mathematically, the only way to improve your odds for winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket and make sure it doesn't have the same
numbers you already selected on the previous tickets"


REFUTE THIS:
The litmus test for the "Every ball in a lottery bin has
precisely blah, blah, blah" theory would be to see if it has
been proved out as true in a "real-life" application. Since no
lottery results history show an equal pull of all numbers then
it follows that the lottery is an "independent series of
random events that operate outside the theoretical laws of
probability".

That only calls for derisive laughter, not superfluous refutation. It's
just some stupid, scatterbrained gobble. It would be funny, however, to
see you try to establish to even 50% confidence that no lottery's history
shows "an equal pull of all numbers." Unfortunately, the relationship
between sample size and other statistics is far beyond your mental grasp.
Could you find any lottery with a reasonable sample size that shows a
statistically significant departure from the expected frequencies? Of
course you couldn't, even if there are some. The even more hilarious part
is that if you could do it, the lottery operators would have done it and
corrected the malfunction long before you did. The other hilarious part is
that you're actually stupid enough that you'd think you can count on
continuation of a false appearance of some kind of cause and effect.

Now that's a good start at another BS reply but once again you failed to
answer the question.
But to humor you, how big a sample size do you want?
A week, a month, a year, your lifetime, my lifetime (which well be, by the
by, far greater then your), infinity?

John sweetheart, if through application you cannot observe that a theorem is
correct then it is a theoretical model that cannot be applied to practical
applications.

The litmus test of this is simple.
Where, according to random theory, you statement is true, it has never been
observed in any lottery drawing.
What has been, and can be, observed is that numbers do appear in numbers
highly disproportionate to what there mean average should be.


REFUTE THIS:
The "fair coin" is a "conceptual model used in probability
theorems" and it simply does not exist in real life.

Regardless of that, it wouldn't mitigate the clearly established fact that
you can't answer the simplest fair-coin or fair-die questions that you
could find in dozens of statistics textbooks if you could read them. The
funny thing is that, once again, you shriek that you REFUTED <snicker>
what I didn't say. I merely asked you to answer the professors' questions.
I didn't say you were holding a homogeneous piece of metal in your hands.
Stupid airhead. Your conditioned response to fair coin questions is
actually far worse than admitting that you have no idea how to answer
them.

John, you once again failed to answer the question.
The question is simply do "fair coins" exist in real life or not?
If so, where can I get one?

As to my knowledge as to the THEORETICAL workings of a "fair coin" I will
simply point you to my original post. It shut you up about "fair coins"
before; perhaps it will do so again.
Refresh your memory by reading:
Sherry Davis <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx>
Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:09 PM
Re: Lottery facts for Sherry
(Don't you just hate it when all that old stuff comes back to biter you in
the rear)


REFUTE THIS:
Bayes's theorem is the defining mathematical formula for
calculating conditional probabilities and not a theory of
"cause and effect".

[Sniped due to profanity. John, please remember the rules about profanity]

John, please attempt to use your limited intelligence to answer the
question.
Hint: you answer was total BS.
You state that "Every ball in the bin blah, blah, blah)", yet you turn
around and say Bayes's theorem has nothing to do with the lottery.
Now since your "Every ball in the bin blah, blah, blah)," is entirely based
on Bayes's theorem, which is "the defining mathematical formula for
calculating conditional probabilities", then if Bayes's theorem has nothing
to do with the lottery then neither has your "Every ball in the bin blah,
blah, blah)".
Need to make up your mind John.
You can't have it both ways.


REFUTE THIS:
The draw history of ANY lottery will contain transient
patterns, anomalies and sequences.

I said that, so only you morons would think I might want to refute it.
Stupid bimbo. The actual quote that slapped one of your hilarious
tantrums out of you was something about the fact that every imaginable
transient pattern will occur in an infinitude of drawings. You reflexive
outgassed some absurd nonsense showing that you don't understand that
those patterns will be purely random series of independent events. It's
kind of like the expectation that if you two and 999,998 mentally
equivalent simians start clattering away on one million typewriters you
would eventually say something intelligent (paraphrased from an old but
reasonable adage).

However, you misstated it, as expected for a couple of illiterate and
innumerate airheads. You left out the necessary qualification. "In the
long run,..." Obviously you can't say that a 6/50 lottery's history will
show any patterns after a couple of dozen drawings, fool. Here's an
illustration. Refer back to it if you ever happen to learn enough to
understand the instruction. Assume that you flip a fair coin ten times.
What's the probability of ten consecutive heads in those ten flips?
What's the probability of ten consecutive heads somewhere in the next
billion flips of the same coin? (Watch the idiots rave that the coin
would be damaged after a couple of hundred million tosses...<snicker>)
The best you can do with your phantom intellect will be to erroneously say
that those probabilities are equal, idiots.

Yes you said it, but on two different occasions since, you denied saying it.
I simply wanted to remove any room for backpedaling.

Your exact words were:
"There will be an infinite number of transient patterns, anomalies
and sequences in an infinitely-repeated stochastic process"

Given that and given that you admit that there are patterns and given that
patterns are "a predictable or prescribed sequence of numbers, objects, etc"
then if follows that, when recognized in their early formation, one could
exploit the patterns to select numbers that meet the criterion of the
pattern.
If the pattern continues you have gained a huge edge.
If not you have lost nothing.

Which is it John?
You can't have it both ways.


By the way, I forgot to direct your attention to the episode from your
past that I added to your biography yesterday. It's the fourth one in the
revised list. I would number them to help you find it, but you really need
the counting practice--lots of repetitions could eventually elevate you to
somewhere near mediocrity, you know. Since the new item so clearly
defines your most amusing emotional and intellectual dysfunction, it
should have been included in the original. I hope you appreciate it.

Me: "Every ball in a lottery bin has precisely the same chance
of coming up next."
Bimbos: "WRONG! The balls that have already been drawn do not
have the same probability!"
Me: "The balls that have already been drawn are not in the bin."
Bimbos: "This is a reason why cousins shouldn't marry."

ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Not even close John.
You have the partially correct quotes from about three or four entirely
different threads, two of them of which I was not even involved in.

John your lies are getting more outrageous each day.
I could practice the same tactics but, unlike you, I do not need to resort
to lies.
LOL, all I have to do is correctly quote all the innumerable stupidities
that you have strewn across the Usernet.


That reminds me...you don't seem all that proud of your actual history as
outlined below. You seem more interested in creating a false one. What's
up with that?

LOL!!!!
"What's up with that?"
Your Gerry persona already used that exact statement earlier in the day.
Is it getting hard to keep it all straight John?
I guess it would with so many voices whispering in your head.

In Summation:
John, I posted these question three days ago.
That means you have had three whole days to think up answers.
If the above is the best you can do I am going to have no choice but to view
you as a petty annoyance and add you to my "Troll Bot"

Please go back and answer the questions, I will look for your attempts to
answer 3 days hence.

Love and Kisses
Sherry

-----
A Bit Of History:

John Vs. The English Language:
John's statement "The only way to increase your chance of winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket." shows that John cannot even cut and paste
without screwing up.
The correct, unsniped, statement is "The only way to improve your odds for
winning a lottery jackpot is to buy another ticket and make sure it doesn't
have the same numbers you already selected on the previous ticket. "
John's misstatement when taken literally, which is how John wants to be
taken, means I can improve my odds by buying ANY two tickets.
When I questioned how purchasing 2 tickets with the same numbers on them
would improve my odds he quickly came back with how I should have read his
mind (now there's a Freddy Krueger type nightmare) and known what he meant.
.......
John Vs. Pretty Much Every Mathematician:
John's statement "Every ball in a lottery bin has precisely the same
probability of coming up next" has been around since the first lottery ball
was drawn and is based on the theoretical law of probability (the operative
word here is "theoretical").
Anyone that has completed high school math (which is why John is confused)
knows that what is true in theory is not always true in practice. That's why
mathematics has been divided into theoretical and practical math.
Practical math is often described as "Real-life math for the real world" as
opposed to
"Ideas and theorems that hold mathematically true but can not be proven or
disproved by practical application" and "have little value outside the
academic and scientific arena."

The litmus test for the "Every ball in a lottery bin has precisely blah,
blah, blah" theory would be to see if it has been proved out as true in a
"real-life" application. Since no lottery results history show an equal pull
of all numbers then it follows that the lottery is a "series of random
events that operate outside the theoretical laws of probability".
.......
John Vs. Reality:
John loves to rattle on about his "fair coin" and use it in his lottery
arguments. Once again he displays his ignorance of math and his inability to
differentiate between theoretical and practical math. Hopefully one day he
will see that the "fair coin" is a "conceptual model used in probability
theorems" and it simply does not exist in real life.
When I did a full-page illustration of the workings of the "fair coin" and
included lots of documentation, I think John changed his tune just a bit.
I was never sure because it was buried in 4 pages of profanity, name
calling, and poor attempts at intimidation by the use of archaic and misused
verbiage. However, as best as I could tell, I think he changed his position
to
"Every ball in a lottery bin has blah, blah" unless you purchase your play
slips with "fair coins".
Go figure?
.......
John Griffin Vs. Thomas Bayes:
For a couple of hundred years, mathematicians have viewed Bayes's theorem as
the defining mathematical formula for calculating conditional probabilities.
Recently John "the troll" Griffin has declared all of these scholars to be
liars and frauds.
He has determined that Bayes's theorem is irrelevant in calculating
probability and it is, in fact, a theorem dealing with, and I quote, "causes
and effects".

Hummm, lots of fine minds have written theorems on cause and effect but
Bayes was not one of them (as any high school graduate will tell you) so I
guess this can be chalked up to another of Johns <select one or more>
inability to understand basic math, poor education or his propensity towards
lying.
.......
John Vs. Progressive Thinking:
Ask the question "By studying the past draw history might a person be able
to produce a group of numbers that have a better then average chance of
being drawn in the upcoming drawing?" of our resident troll and he will go
absolutely ballistic.

"Can not be done," says he. Yet he cut and pasted this little tidbit "There
will be an infinite number of transient patterns, anomalies and sequences in
an infinitely-repeated stochastic process"

Says I, "Since there are "transient patterns, anomalies and sequences" then
if one can devise a method of identifying them, in their early term, then
they would exploitable".
"Not so" says he, "Why if a person could do that then he might be able to
invent some sort of round device that could be attached to an axel below a
cart like device and transport things more easily, or travel without the use
of horses, or fly above the ground like birds, or even go to the moon."
.......
John Vs. The Lottery Commission:
John makes the statement "If a pattern is 'real,' i.e., a result of some
mechanical or villainous (a real fine word when used properly) defect in the
works, it will have raised alarms in the test runs".

John needs to get on the phone and instruct all the varies lotteries that
their test runs are faulty because anyone that has actually played the
lottery has noticed that, on occasion, a given number would be drawn
repeatedly in successive draws. The longest streak I can remember, if memory
serves, was the same number was drawn in 6 consecutive draws.
......
John AND the Terrorist:
I put together a simplified version of the academic "Sleeping Beauty"
problem that deals with how one should view the odds in a multiple occurring
random event.
(http://www.anthropic-rinciple.com/preprints/beauty/synthesis.pdf.)
which I called the "Terrorist Dice Game".

It put the ability to retain and utilize "indexable values" into a
simplified but practical problem as could be applied to the selection of
lottery numbers.
John has evaded the question by ignoring it or taking the debate off onto
one of his famous rabbit trails. However after three days of really hard
thought he came up with a silly little math equation that, although he
thought it would stump everyone, was on about a 4th grade level.
The long and short of it was that he was still trying to evade the question
as his answer was, ignoring the rules, he would bring his own die and it
would be loaded.

Why would he avoid so simple a question? Simple, if he were to answer it he
would nullify all of his arguments and his pointy little head would explode.

The Terrorist Dice Game:
You have been captured by terrorist and taken to their camp in the desert.
Here they have a game whose rules are simple.
You must pick a number from 1 to 6.
They then roll a die on the commander's desk.
If you have chosen correctly you can go free.
If you have chosen incorrectly you die a slow horrible death.
Since being held prisoner you have seen this game played out 100 times
before.
You have seen the number 6 come up 85 times, the number 5 come up 5 times,
the number 4 come up 4 times, the number 3 come up 3 times, the number 2 has
come up twice and the number 1 has come up only once.
You are dragged to the commander's office, the guard holds the die in his
hand, you are ordered to choose a number.
What number do you choose and why?
(Sorry, no asking for a fair die, no loaded dice, no asking that it be
rolled in a vacuum chamber, no getting diarrhea of the mouth in the hopes
they lose interest and go away.)

-----
A Few Facts About Johns "Debating" Tactics:

FACT 1: John Griffin is a liar and twists statements to meet his own
purpose.
Me: "Buying a second ticket doubles your chance of winning.
Do NOT, repeat DO NOT use the same combination on both."
LOL, lets all move our scroll bars down memory lane to:
John: "2) The only way to increase your chance of winning a lottery jackpot
is to buy another ticket." Period, no "Do Not" add on.
If you have trouble finding these posts just search the newsgroup for the
text "The only way to increase". You will get about a hundred hits.
Please note this version ends when I point out to John that he has
incorrectly posted someone's else's quote which is, "The only way to improve
your odds for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy another ticket and make
sure it doesn't have the same numbers you already selected on the previous
ticket. " and illustrated it with:
Sherry: "If the first ticket has 1,2,3,4,5,6 and the second ticket has
1,2,3,4,5,6, how does that double your chances?"

FACT 2: John Griffin cannot differentiate between theoretical and practical
math nor does he properly understand either.
Idiot, the *** you've parroted has only shown that you have no hope of
even understanding, let alone refuting, the facts I post.
If you are referring to my quoting references and their source, I can only
respond that I prefer to quote the thoughts of the great mathematicians
instead of using your approach of just making sh*t up.
You're made up math and inability to understand proven theoretical or
practical math theorems shows you poor education.
Sorry if the fact confuses you, but that's life.

FACT 3: When a fact does not fit into Johns fantasy version of "lotto Laws"
it is to be explained by "sh*t happens" or "it is irrelevant".
In the illiterate, ignorant, innumerate and astonishingly stupid bimbo
mind, the superstition that a random event can be predicted has nothing to
do with addressing the outcome of a random event.
John if you cannot see the difference in performance between random and
human selected sets then you are an absolute moron. Unless you can provide
me with a better explanation then "sh*t happens" it must stand that humans
can predict the outcome with greater accuracy then that of the games mean
average.

random event "prediction" vs. random event
outcome...way fuckin' disparate topics
If you cannot understand this simple difference then there is simply no hope
for you. And please remember that I included in my post the wording "most
reasonable people".

FACT 4: When John is totally stumped he will simply make up some
incomprehensible BS to cover his ignorance.
Not so, imbecile. The quick-pick tickets mostly have exactly one
combination. The do-it-yourself tickets have more than twice as many.
What are "h e double toothpicks" are you talking about?
A pick line has one line of numbers. Using the pick 6 lottery, a pick line
consists of 6 numbers whether human or quick pick. Damn, I wish I could get
12 numbers for the price of 6.

FACT 5: John, although he tries to exhibit a great understanding of the
English language, has a tough time understanding what is written in plain
English.
Without the raw data, imbecile, those figures are meaningless, and you
have most emphatically demonstrated that the arithmetic ("math" in the
It was pointed out that the raw data was available, and I quote;
"Anyone who wishes to verify this may download the attachment to the thread
'Draw Stats - Quick Picks Vs. Choose Your Own'".

It's pretty funny that you don't know the difference
between "tickets sold" and "lines played"
Duh. John, I believe I properly worded any phrase containing these two
phrases.

FACT 6: John believes if he repeats a lie over and over again it will become
true.
Let that go, you moron. There is no application of Bayes's theorem or any
other thing that deals with conditional probability or any kind of cause
and effect in a fucking lottery.
You mind gets further and further out.. further and further out.. bye Johns
mind : )
Bayes's theorem has everything to with random probability. It's the defining
theorem of random probability. We exchanged a dozen posts about this.
Further, the Quick Pick computer program is based entirely on generating
random numbers that conform to Bayes's theorem.
Any doubts about this can be settled by looking at the data I attached to
the thread "Draw Stats - Quick Picks Vs. Choose Your Own".

John, have you even looked at the data?
Of course you have.
You just will not admit it because the FACTS contained within makes a
mockery you and your fantasy version of "lotto Laws".

FACT 7: You Cannot Best a Fool.
John you have, on a continual basis, shown yourself to be a fool and
therefore it is futile to attempt to discuss anything with you on a rational
basis. You are simply just too stupid to understand anything beyond your
little version of "lotto Laws".

FACT 8: John can fantasize on something so long that it becomes true in his
warped and feeble mind.
Sherry wants me.
ROFLMAO, I would rather run through hell wearing gasoline soaked (turquoise
colored) underwear.

FACT 9: When someone answers one of John's foolish assertions and shows him
for the idiot he is, he simply ignores it and continues to ask the same
question over and over and over and over again.
--No attempts to refute any of the facts that slap them into
those hilarious tantrums.
John, what question did I fail to answer and REFUTE?
Hint here; If you throw out the same old stuff I have answered before I will
simply tell you to see the previous thread.

-----
A Sampling Of The Above:


John: "You can not even see it you fat, stupid, slutty bimbo"
you claim that the odds of drawing the object numbered "50",
in 6 attempts, are 6/50 or 1 in 12."

Yep, I did a typing error.
This is the seventh time I have posted a correction to the error I made
while distracted by other things. I'll repeat the correction I posted so
that life may move forward (well for the rest of us, you'll continue sitting
in the same pile of waste you are sitting in now);
I meant to type "is 6/50 or 12%".
John, that's seven times now. Has it sunk into your pointy little head yet?


John: "The only way to improve your chance of winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket."
Sherry: "That's' WRONG! I purchase 2 tickets. One with the
numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 and the second ticket with the numbers
1,2,3,4,5,6. How has this improved my odds?"

John, since I called you on the factual incorrectness of this statement you
have come up with three new versions of what you supposedly said (none 100%
correct).
Why you do not just start quoting the text you stole it from correctly.
"The only way to improve your odds for winning a lottery jackpot is to buy
another ticket and make sure it doesn't have the same numbers you already
selected on the previous ticket"

Or you could even make it 100% accurate by saying.
"Mathematically, the only way to improve your odds for winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket and make sure it doesn't have the same
numbers you already selected on the previous tickets"


John: "The only way to improve your chance of winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket."
John Said Sherry Said: (Paraphrased without loss or change in content)--
"SQUUUUUAAAAAWWWWK! You have a little ***!"

LOL, find any post concerning your "The only way to improve your chance of
blah, blah, blah" where my reply can even remotely be paraphrased that way.
If you can, please point out where.
If you cannot then stop lying about it.


John Said Sherry Said: "The probability of a particular number being
drawn in a 6/50 lottery is 1/50 for the first number drawn, 1/49
for the second number, thus 6/50."

Again John, old boy, locate any post where I said this.
What you are twisting and taking out of context was my statement:
"the odds of pulling a pre-selected set of 6 objects from a pool of 50
objects would be;
6/50 × 5/49 × 4/48 × 3/47 × 2/46 × 1/45 = 720/11,441,304,000 "
See Post:
Sherry Davis <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx>
Monday, July 10, 2006 12:04 AM
Re: Lottery facts for Sherry

If you can find where I said the above, please point out where.
If you cannot then stop lying about it.


Saving the funniest for last...
Sherry: "I'm a mental health councilor."

If you can find where I said: "I'm a mental health councilor", please point
out where.
Correct statement "One of my past jobs was as a councilor at the MHMR".
If you cannot then stop lying about it.


John: "What is the probability that a particular number will be
drawn in a 6/50 lottery?"
John Said Sherry Said: "My exact statement was
6/50*5/49*4/48*3/47*2/46*1/45=
1/15890700"

ROFLMAO!!!!!!
This is the third time you have twisted this statement around into a
different version.
Here is the whole of my replies to TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT questions:

Question 1 was dealing with the odds of drawing a particular number in a
6/50 lottery.
To which I responded: "the odds of drawing the object numbered "50", in 6
attempts, are 6/50

Question 2 was dealing with how to configure the odds of winning a 6/50
lottery
To which I responded: "the odds of pulling a pre-selected set of 6 objects
from a pool of 50 objects would be; 6/50 × 5/49 × 4/48 × 3/47 × 2/46 × 1/45
= 720/11,441,304,000"

John, If you cannot stop lying about it .

Further update: The bimbos don't understand that repeating
that exact statement a couple of lines under that exact
question was another demonstration of their illiteracy.

OH MY GOD!!!!!
DID YOU SAY THAT!!!!!!
Lol this is coming from a troll says the same thing 6 different ways in
every post.
The same pinhead that ends every post with the same conglomeration of lies
time, after time, after time.
And isn't it John who spends 2/3 of his time repeating the same questions
(after they have been addressed) over, and over, and over, and over. Lets
not forget that he has been recycling the same old BS for 12+ years.
DAMN JOHN, YOU ARE FUNNY!!!!!!

-----

PS.
Did I mention that:
I am young and healthy.
You are old and sickly.
Who's going to get the last post?
(and that is how you tell who won the debate, isn't it John)
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

PPS
http://www.accs.net/users/kriel/chapter%20three/roadrunner.jpg
BLEEP-BLEEP







.

Quantcast