Verlyn & Judith Adamson from Wisconsin just claimed $350,000 lotto winnings on Monday from Saturday's SuperCash drawing. It wasn't luck, they said. Veryln is fond of math puzzles and claims he cracked the lottery's system.

They are exploring patents on the formula.

This isn't their first time winning either, according to their lawyer, Scott Thompson; it's just a larger winning this time.

There should be no system or 'variables' as you say. It is supposed to be random. If each ball weighs the same, and the motion in the tank is the same, then the ball that is chosen should be random.

Maybe this particular one is computer generated or uses a different methodology, one that can't be foreseen, but predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.

I use to work for a lottery vendor company... I can't say much, but I will say that anyone... ANYONE who thinks they have cracked the lottery code is delusional. Even if they did, it can be easily altered and changed and improved. Its built to rip you off and make billions of dollars, and every measure has been put into place to make sure they get and keep every penny possible. It's like those loonies who tell you you don't have to pay your taxes because its 'voluntary' or something.

That said, if they did somehow 'crack' the code, more power too them, they better exploit it while they can before it gets fixed or legal action is taken.

If you doubt this, then ask ANYONE you know and trust who actually has a background in mathematical statistics and they will confirm this.

If there is a system, then the lottery is unfair and rigged. If you could actually prove it was rigged, the lawsuits that followed would break the state's economy settling the millions of valid fraud claims.

It is mathematically impossible to do what they claim IF the lottery is truly random, as it should be.

But, no doubt, they'll make another million off the gullible fools who scramble to buy their nonsense, totally blinded by greed and foolishness to common sense.

People who claim to have a system, especially a book, computer program or 'formula' for sale on the subject, are either deluded or just plain con artists taking advantage of public ignorance of mathematics.

The lottery is supposed to be random. By definition, this means NOT predictable or systematic in any discernable way.

I don't think you can get a patent on a mathematical formula. The concept is ridiculous. In higher mathematics, the same answer could be arrived at by millions of different formulas. I could simply change it to another formula with no resemblance or derivation in common with the original. Such a patent would be obsolete in an hour.

One thing about US patents. There is no requirement that whatever it is that you wish to patent, be proven to work or even be possible to build a working model or have ANY function at all!

You could invent a machine claiming to give you immortality and legally patent it as long as nobody else beat you to the same idea. In fact, that has already been done!

Magnetic rings, claiming to give the wearer immortality actually have a valid US patent!

Don't be fooled by the word 'patented'. It's worthless. Even quack cures, like homeopathic 'remedies' can be patented, in spite of being proven worthless.

The same with their ridiculous mathematical fantasy formula.

If I flipped a coin, I wonder what the odds would be that the result was either heads or tails.

Any coin. If you flip it, what's the probability that the result will be either heads or tails?

Answering that question gives insight as to how well one understands the basics of probability. If one answers that question incorrectly, then he or she has some problems grasping the concept.

Probability can be tricky. Lots of people answer that question incorrectly, but that's normal for the non-analytical types.

Many would at first glance assume the answer to be 50%.

It is 100% for any ordinary Heads/Tails coin. No trick coin is needed.

If You asked me what the result of the flip would be and I predicted, "It will be either Heads or Tails", then the probability is 100% that I would be correct, because it would indeed be EITHER heads OR tails as predicted. I couldn't be wrong because I said it would be one or the other.

It's like betting on every horse in the race and proudly announcing that the horse I bet on won every day this week. Sounds impressive when the losses aren't mentioned and I wouldn't be lying either.

You can prove anything with statistics. The government excels at that.

I beleive if its like keno where you pick 10 numbers and 7 or 8 hit there is a possibility of a system, i dont gamble but tested my system and did quiete well, you have to play quiete a few numbers, the way I did it was I picked blocks of numbers like 1-10, 10-20, 20-30.etc then 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15-17-19 and splitting different blocks like 10,20 30,40,50 60 70 80. After having about 50 different blocks of numbers I stuck with them as a test the more blocks you play the better your chances because being numbers are randomly selected there are times when they come out in blocks, instead of spread out, the odds of numbers not coming out in a group of close numbers happens sometimes but it also happens in groups/blocks , Its like randomly picking numbers but dont have them occasionaly fall into groups of numbers

i play the supercash here and there. maybe its something to do with the numbers. if you read the post they have won 350k twice and have 2 more winning tickets for jackpots they have not cashed in on yet.

I only but three tickets each time.. One with the numbers that have hit the most.. One with the number that have hit the least. and One Easy Pick (Random). Most I've won so far have be 2K, the rest I write off on my taxes as donations to the School system. (In Va the the money goes to the school systems..)

Not exactly. But you are being a bit pedantic and adding unauthorised outside details clouding the concept being discussed. No need to split hairs or consider on-edge states or anything not specifically mentioned. Only heads/tails count. It's a binary state problem, but two (or any other number of) possible outcomes do not necessarily have to be equally weighted in terms of probability.

No matter how they are weighted, the sum of the either/or probabilities always sums to 100%.

If the probability of heads was 20%, then the probability of tails would be 80%.

The probability of heads = 20 The probability of tails = 80 The probability of either heads OR tails = 20+80 = 100%

The same holds if it were exactly 50/50 or 10/90, 60/40, etc.

The rule here is: (The probability of success) + (The probability of failure) = 100%

If I predict, "The result will be either heads or tails," then I win either way, so it's always 100% success.

There can be no failure because the prediction translates to: "If the result is not tails, then the result will be heads or vice versa." My guess is 100% correct regardless of the result.

Don't play. I use birthdays when I play but usually grab scratchcards. If we win I dip it back in to buy more. If I win, say 50 bucks, I put 20 in for tickets. I get a bit of profit sometimes, but I'm really playing for fun.

instead of buying $5 worth of tickets each week, they buy $1000 worth. This in turn increases their chances. LOL.

You can look at the current numbers of which are picked and not picked, and try to put it in a formula. But the end results are they are spending more money, which increases their odds of winning.

Some people play 'Power Ball' all their life and do not win. Others play it in a 'Quick Pick' format and win it 2 or 3 times in their life time. Some store machines produce 3x the winning tickets than other stores. Why? Because the money people spend, the better their chances. The more tickets printed on a lotto machine, the better the odds that store will have more winning tickets.

Most people who win the lotto will buy 10x to 100x more tickets than they did when they didn't win it, considering they have more money to blow. That is their formula, buy more...win more. There still is no guarantee.

If you get a coin and toss it 100 or even 1000 times.

I'll be you over 60% of them would be one side.

I understand the rules of probability, but if you tossed the coin and you got more than 60% of one side, then you had to make a bet which could win you $10,000,000 on the outcome of the coin,

I would choose that too - if I sensed that was indeed he case.

But, weighting was never relevant at any point in the discussion, even though I fully understand your point.

You seem to be splitting hairs merely for the sake of argument, which is OK, but not really necessary.

The scenario you mention applies more to dice rolls on a surface than random coin flips into the air. Dice rolls could be extremely effected by weighting. I'm sure you've heard of 'loaded dice', which means weighted or biased.

However, I'd like to remind you that the ORIGINAL contention was simply predicting that a coin flip result would be EITHER HEADS OR TAILS would always result in a 100% probability of my being correct, regardless of the outcome, remains perfectly true and unchanged regardless of weighting or method we used to flip the coin (as long as landing on edge on a surface is discarded as a possibility, in which case, most people would simply ignore it as a meaningless result and try again anyway).

Simply flipping a spinning, ordinary coin into the air, catching it, slapping it down on the top of your hand and looking at the result (at least that's my way of flipping coins) is virtually unaffected by differently weighted sides. Over the long-term, you couldn't differentiate it from 50/50 to any discernable degree of consequence. Weighting can be ignored as negligible in such a case. If the coin was allowed to roll or spin on a flat surface until it finally came to rest, then weighting might be significant. For that reason, I wouldn't use that method with coins.

As far as those rare instances where someone actually does flip a simple coin to make a quick decision about something, we can consider it a 50/50 result without having to concern ourselves in the slightest over weighting or anything else.