Well then there is: www.the*winningsage*.com<http://www.thewinningsage.com/> If you believe it, she has apparently won every contest she has ever won and she has entered thousands.
Tony Robbins recounds how at one of his seminars he told people to choose something and to really believe in it to make it happen, they told him they planned to win the lottery and though he was a bit doubtful he didn't object. So they told everyone that they had already won it and sure enough they won some large figure prize. So later he told others at his seminars about this and some people selected to try it and they won. And then the (couple I think) who won the first lot did it again. I'm also reminded of that retropsychokinesis experiment where people had to try and influence a past unobserved random event, radioactive decay, apparently successful. On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Randomness, like beauty, and even physics itself, is relative. > > Kinda like when my spell checker decides to take-five. > > > Apparently the initiator of the 'randum' thread has the same model. > > (spell checker) > > > Have you ever played Lotto? If so, no one needs to tell you that there are > patterns. Can they be deciphered? The compulsive gambler probably thinks > that they can. Compulsive gamblers are losers, and cannot be trusted- as we > see time and again in the popular press. > > > But "patterns" - even patterns in ostensibly random strings, can be > deciphered. Relatively speaking. > > > Never mind that the odds are greater than 50,000,000:1 for most lotto > games. Sometimes there will be multiple winners; every once in while there > will be a 'baker's dozen' ;-) and once in a blue moon there will be over 100 > ! (this happened once on PowerBall) > > > In fact, there have been a surprising number of cases where there were so > many winners that the odds of that happening - according to statisticians - > were (previously determined to be) in the 100,000,000,000,000,000 to one > range ... that is, if you did not realize the power of the "fortune cookie". > > The fortune cookie is a California invention, inspired by the Chinese love > of making dough, so to speak. Often crafty Asian bakers print "random > numbers" for lotto on the back of the laughably fake predictions disclosed > in the slip baked into the cookie. > > > Anyway that little facet of anti-randomness (too many winners) is just the > tip of a much larger and more mysterious 'randumb' iceberg - of how fate is > cheated on a regular basis by the very few and the very perceptive (which is > close to "very smart" but not exactly the same thing). This rarity of > individual may have been a wash-out at University. > > > Hey - don't laugh - this is similar to the kind of random iceberg that sunk > the Titanic ;-) ... i.e. failing to realize ALL of the variables that can > alter apparent randomness in special or hidden circumstances. Not to > mention: do not "tempt fate", as they say. > > At casinos, over 999 out of 1000 regular players are net losers. That is no > secret. And it is of almost no deterrence to the losers. > > Most of the regular "players" are losers with an occasional large winning > night that serves to make them compulsive in a self-destructive way. It is > an addiction, not unlike nicotine or heroin. > > There are, however, set amongst this sad cast, a very few consistent > winners. The statisticians hate mention of them, and generally deny that any > reference to them is accurate. But the real experts - Casino security - > *know* they are there and also know that that most of them are honest but > well-disciplined. > > When interviewed, the most most visible trait that the few net winners seem > to have in common is that they claim that they can sense a 'lucky streak' > (which is a personal fortuitous point in time) and yet they can walk away > from the tables without dropping very much - *any and every other time*. > This is important - most of the time they walk away. Most of them (in the > USA) live in Nevada for logistics reasons. > > The temple of Apollo at Delphi in ancient Greece, bore the inscription > Meden Agan - 'Nothing in excess'. Doing something "in moderation" means not > doing it excessively in the naive POV. Actually and for present purposes > (figuring out how to beat-the-odds) - avoiding excess is not quite the whole > truth. Meden Agan must connote balancing the rare "planned excess" against > much more frequent "near-abstinence". Fine distinction there. > > This is the critical and unappreciated detail - the inner strength to deny > the thrill - and the ability to "know yourself" vis-a-vis an instant in > time, and to be able to walk away on any other 'normal' night. IOW the > 'compulsive gambler' is NEVER a net winner; only the one-in-a-thousand who > can sense the 'streak' and who can abstain most of the other times without > the "thrill" of playing. That is very counter-intuitive, and very rare. > > Another way to cheat 'randumb' fate is 'spotting the trend', in addition to > spotting the best time. Put both of these two traits together, and you can > get yourself only to the threshold of beating the odds. There are no > guarantees, of course. > > It is not unusual to notice certain patterns and trends appear in random > numbers, random cards or random-whatever, and to try to anticipate those > trends carefully. When questioned about this phenomenon, mathematicians > respond by saying, "you haven't run enough trials yet". And they are > correct. There are no "long term trends" in randomness. Duh! > > But beating the odds is NOT about long trials and Excel spreadsheets- it is > about knowing your "own" special timing, and about recognizing trends, > anticipating trends, and NOT making careless errors; but most of all - it is > about self-denial - walking away the rest of the time. > > > Statisticians are focused on long-term results because the results > vindicate the theoretical stance of true randomness. > > > On the other hand, the short term results are the only thing of interest to > the few who do manage to beat the odds. > > There is a lesson in there somewhere for alternative energy advocates, but > it is hard to verbalize... > > > Jones > >
